| Revision as of 05:08, 9 December 2008 view sourceShrampes (talk | contribs)111 edits →Statement by GoodDamon: not yet arbcom← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 03:40, 31 January 2023 view source AmandaNP (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Bureaucrats, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators45,707 edits What the actual fuckTags: Replaced Undo | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Short description|Wikimedia project page}} | |||
| :''WP:RFAR redirects here. You may be looking for ] (]).'' | |||
| <noinclude>{{pp-protected|small=yes}}{{pp-move-indef}}</noinclude> | |||
| {{/Header}} <!-- front matter of this page--> | |||
| {{/Header}} | |||
| {{/Case}} | |||
| {{/Clarification and Amendment}} | |||
| {{/Motions}} | |||
| {{/Enforcement}} | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ==Current requests== | |||
| === Scientology === | |||
| '''Initiated by ''' <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> '''at''' 18:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Involved parties ==== | |||
| <!-- use {{admin|username}} if the party is an administrator --> | |||
| *{{userlinks|Durova}}, ''filing party'' | |||
| *{{userlinks|Justallofthem}} | |||
| *{{admin|Cirt}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|Jayen466}} | |||
| *{{admin|Jossi}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|Shutterbug}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|Misou}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|GoodDamon}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|Bravehartbear}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|Shrampes}} | |||
| <!-- The editor filing the case should be included as a party for purposes of notifications. --> | |||
| ;Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request` | |||
| <!-- All parties must be notified that the request has been filed, immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. --> | |||
| *Durova ''filing party'' | |||
| *Justallofthem | |||
| *Cirt | |||
| *Jayen466 | |||
| *Jossi | |||
| *Shutterbug | |||
| *Misou | |||
| *GoodDamon | |||
| *Bravehartbear | |||
| *Shrampes | |||
| ;Confirmation that other steps in ] have been tried | |||
| <!-- Identify prior attempts at dispute resolution here, with links/diffs to the page where the resolution took place. If prior dispute resolution has not been attempted, the reasons for this should be explained in the request for arbitration --> | |||
| *] | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| ==== Statement by ] ==== | |||
| Requesting a follow-on to the COFS arbitration case. After more than a year of relative stability and progress at Scientology topics, recent developments have overwhelmed site processes. On November 26 a thread opened at AE that raised serious concerns about conflict of interest and possible role accounts. Since then several other related concerns have opened at other fora, most of which remain unresolved: a suspected sockpuppet report (unresolved), two checkuser requests (both unfulfilled), and a malware linking issue (resolved; Meta has blacklisted the domain). On 6 December a separate thread opened at AE with the first one still open, with the new thread mostly regarding actions by Cirt, and subthreads there have proliferated for two days. Recently Justallofthem announced an intention to introduce concerns about Cirt's use of the admin tools. | |||
| So requesting a new case for four reasons: | |||
| # This expanding dispute is outpacing the community's capacity for response. | |||
| # Uninvolved admins are unlikely to intervene in multiple large AE threads where many issues are on the table at the same time. | |||
| # Several of the editors have changed usernames since the previous arbitration case, which makes it harder for uninvolved admins to understand the situation. | |||
| # Arbitration enforcement is not equipped to respond to misuse of admin tools, if any occurred. | |||
| As Cirt's mentor for over a year, I am well aware of his previous history of edit warring. When I conominated him for adminship it was in the belief that he had put that far behind him. Yet recent events are concerning. The scope of concerns here is too broad for a clarification request and deserves thorough attention. Requesting the Committee scrutinize the conduct of all parties. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 18:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :(to FloNight): What's happened in the last two weeks resembles the dynamic that occurred prior to the original COFS case: a topic ban was proposed, then multiple editors with prior involvement lined up in predictable ways, and multiple side issues got raised faster than anyone could solve them. The effect has been to stymie meaningful progress. The few admins who have shown an interest (Jehochman, Jossi) have histories that make them unsuitable to take action. The situation is like a clogged sink that's filling faster than it can drain with no actual plumber in sight. | |||
| :Some of the issues here are weighty and the rest are too increasing too swiftly. I asked both sides to slow down and table the low priority issues until the preexisting ones got resolved. Unfortunately, not all the disputants accept that advice. Justa accused me of trying to sweep matters under the rug, then announced his intention to expand the second AE thread with admin conduct issues. I certainly don't intend to sweep anything under the rug or shield anybody from legitimate scrutiny, yet AE is not equipped to handle admin conduct issues. In two weeks AE has proven inadequate to the numerous Scientology-related issues already before it. There have, I think, been other post-arbitration attempts at formal dispute resolution (I'll leave the Wikipedians who edit these areas to introduce that). I wish things hadn't come to this, but RFAR really seems like the right call under the present circumstances. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 20:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Statement by Jehochman ==== | |||
| I witnessed this blossoming dispute, and feel that arbitration is inevitable. Better to hear the matter now before disruption becomes more widespread. The threads at ] look like miniature arbitration cases. That board is ill-suited to dealing with such complexity. ] <sup>]</sup> 18:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : Flo, the problem is ]. We cannot generate a consensus at ] for whatever reasons, and there does not seem to be any admin willing to take action. (I'd normally step up to the plate, but I was a party to the original case, so I'd rather not.) I'd favor the parties using ] or ] to resolve content disagreements, but we cannot force them to do that. The large amount of evidence is not "bad" in general, but it is bad for that particular noticeboard which is not equipped for handling complex questions. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Statement by ] ==== | |||
| I strongly suspected something like this would eventually happen, and feel some culpability in the matter as the one who initiated the incident report that became the first of the recent ] reports. Nevertheless, I stand by that report. | |||
| My concerns are simple. I have edited in many areas of Misplaced Pages, and in particular recently found myself on the receiving end of long-term abusive sockpuppetry in an unrelated family of articles about political groups. As an editor, I should not be expected to work with or tolerate abusive sockpuppetry -- much less ] accounts. When several long-quiescent accounts started editing in the Scientology series again, I was made aware of something that I hadn't known previously: That several of the accounts, notably Misou and Shutterbug, were confirmed socks editing from a Church of Scientology-owned IP address. This appears, at least to me, to be an open-and-shut case of sockpuppetry and/or role accounts. As the accounts in question are already well-established as ] ones, I do not understand why they/she/he were permitted to continue. | |||
| In the original ArbCom, one of the principles agreed upon was "]", establishing that it is difficult to determine strict sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry in cases where shared IP addresses are claimed, and thus remedies are to be behavior-based for such cases. But when the IP addresses in question belong to the organization that the Misplaced Pages article is about, it ceases to be merely sock/meatpuppetry, and starts leaning into ] territory: Accounts created on behalf of the organization in question that exist for the sole purpose of pushing that organization's positive perspective. | |||
| Again, this is simple: I and other editors who find themselves interested in Scientology enough to contribute to this body of articles should not have to "compete" with a person or people working directly for the Church of Scientology. I am neutral on Scientology itself, but I have a very strong POV regarding this. --<font color="green">]</font>] 18:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ;To FloNight: | |||
| For my part, I was hoping the community would handle this, but I only have one complaint and I'm not sure why it requires such a complex environment as this one to handle. My points are simple: | |||
| # Shutterbug, Misou, and several other accounts were confirmed socks. | |||
| # They claimed a proxy shared by "hundreds if not thousands." | |||
| # This argument fell apart recently on closer inspection, as the proxy they were claiming has edited nearly exclusively in Scientology topics. | |||
| # The IP address in question belonged to the Church of Scientology. | |||
| # For the reasons above, the accounts should be treated as sock/meat puppets and likely ] accounts. | |||
| The evidence is very clear cut and Misplaced Pages policies are Misplaced Pages policies. I don't know why what should be a very, very simple event -- topic-banning ] role accounts -- requires so much effort. There has been a lot of noise generated about other editors, but those have been content disputes. I see no reason not to cut through that noise and deal with the sock accounts, and one very good reason to do so: As long as editing is being done by accounts associated directly with the Church of Scientology, it is very difficult for other editors -- Scientologist and non-Scientologist alike -- to edit in the same area. '''And we shouldn't be expected to'''. --<font color="green">]</font>] 22:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ;To Justanother: | |||
| Call it what you will. Reopening, calling for enforcement, whatever. Perhaps you are partially correct; the old ArbCom happened before I stumbled upon the Scientology articles in the first place, and there are no doubt all sorts of aspects to it I'm unaware of; it was huge and cumbersome, while the issue I perceive is clear-cut and simple. Perhaps there are good reasons why "many editors, one voice" was agreed upon, although they do not appear to have edited from a position of humility and acceptance of the notion that they are to be treated as a single account. --<font color="green">]</font>] 23:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ;To Shrampes: | |||
| After reviewing ]'s edits, I can see why you might initially mistake him/her as a ], but even from the start, that account has edited in other areas, and has more recently been editing in more and more diverse fields. Don't mistake the user's initial area of interest as indicative of anything. Someone reviewing my edits at the beginning of my time in Misplaced Pages might mistake me as a single-purpose account as well. --<font color="green">]</font>] 02:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| To be clear, there is nothing inherently wrong with being a single-purpose account. Some people have just one area of interest, and as long as they don't possess an inherent ], being a single-purpose account is fine. It's when there are SPA and COI issues combined that things become problematic, and for the record the only SPAs involved in this discussion that I am aware of are Shutterbug, Misou, and Bravehartbear. Justallofthem is borderline, but I wouldn't call him/her a single-purpose account. And I'm not familiar enough with the editing habits of the other parties to know one way or another. --<font color="green">]</font>] 02:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ;Response: | |||
| I had the impression (on the other AE page) that Shutterbug is chased around for being a ]? It is my understanding that a conflict of interest is only of interest for the community if it damages the project. I am not familiar enough with the scope of Shutterbug's edits and I do not have the time to go through hundreds of edits. But if there is a damage for Misplaced Pages it must be possible to name it. ] (]) 03:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ;Response 2: | |||
| GoodDamon, ] is a member of Misplaced Pages since 6 weeks, has done 442 article edits, 372 on scientology and 35 not on scientology . I got fooled until I took a look at the articles but it is that many. Along with that he has contributed 165 talk page edits, 152 on scientology. Maybe I am just a bit picky, but to me this is "a user account that edits either a single article, a group of related articles, or performs edits to a group of unrelated articles in the same manner on Misplaced Pages", or ]. Most of edits were to delete references or to add non-scholar sources. That sometimes has a certain value just as Shutterbug's or Cirt's edits have a certain value. As long as they are open about their affiliations there should be no problem. But why is Spidern not in this RFAR? ] (]) 05:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Statement by ] ==== | |||
| I do not know why Durova has named me as a party... I made a couple of comments at ], but that's all. I kindly ask the clerk to remove me as a party, as I am not. Thanks ] <small>]</small> 20:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Statement by ] ==== | |||
| This action was not at my request. Please note that all I asked of ] was that "Cirt should minimally be strongly cautioned about maintaining ] in the Scientology articles." I still strongly believe that. | |||
| However, seeing as we are here now: I have a very unique perspective on Cirt that is likely shared by very few. Cirt began editing here three or four usernames back, in 2006, a few months before I began, also a few name changes back for me. He originally edited in an ]-related area and was quickly party to an arbitration related to his editing behavior which was closed with editing recommendations for all parties involved but no sanctions. In October 2006, Cirt moved over to Scientology articles, where I encountered him early on. Although our first few exchanges were cordial, I soon found him to be an aggressive POV-warrior with little care for the quality of his sources. Repeated experience with him right on up to the present has not much changed my mind about him. Cirt is a man with a mission. He is, and has always been, incredibly prolific and that prolificacy is, and always has been, exercised in the direction of forwarding a POV. I find it disturbing that admin Cirt is still "apologizing" for the exact same sort of "mistakes" that he "apologized" for in that first arbitration over two years and what, 60,000 edits? ago. I don't buy it. If the arbitration panel is interested in looking into the FULL history of ALL involved editors, then I am all for that. That history matters, especially in Cirt's case. | |||
| ;To FloNight | |||
| I agree that both of the issues raised at arbitration enforcement are well within the purview of that forum and of the remedies at ]. There are two distinct issues. The first, brought by GoodDamon, relates to whether there is activity on the part of Shutterbug that violates the terms of the decision. I presented my opinion that there is none but am otherwise not involved in that issue. The other issue is the one I brought that asserts that Cirt has demonstrated repeatedly that his edits and interpretation of policy are skewed in the direction of his anti-Scientology POV to an unacceptable degree. Both of these can be addressed as enforcement of the existing conditions on Shutterbug and on the Scientology articles as a whole. The amount of evidence presented should, IMO, be seen as a positive, not as the negative that some would have it. As regards my mention that I found something else I wanted to bring up, I said it was "use of the admin bits", not misuse. Whether it was misuse will be for others to decide and even if it was misuse, it would likely be chalked up to another "honest mistake". I was going to present it not as damning evidence that Cirt should be de-sysoped but as simply another example of the heavy-handed and highly POV way that {{User|Cirt}} has settled himself over the Scientology articles. That is evident to any that look at his edit history in depth, disregarding the padding of non-controversial work such anti-vandalism (note though that he frequently calls what should be content dispute "vandalism" or "Page blanking, removal of content" when it comes from what might be a Scientology-sympathetic POV; witness yielding ). --] (]) 20:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ;On GoodDamon's remark | |||
| GoodDamon makes a couple of points that do not hold up but I do not want to argue them as it simply comes down to rearguing a closed arbitration. I have said time and again that GoodDamon's enforcement issue is not enforcement at all but a call to redo the arbitration. --] (]) 23:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ====Statement by ]==== | |||
| I wish things hadn't come to this point. I Durova's suggestion to table non-urgent disputes until other issues were resolved. I do not believe I've misused the admin tools in any way. Yet if the Committee wishes to open a case, I welcome scrutiny. Whatever venue things take I'd just like to clear the air. ''']''' (]) 21:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ====Statement by ]==== | |||
| I was reading this on ] yesterday and felt the best outcome was to close it as "interesting, but sparse on anything actionable." The outstanding SSP and CU requests need to be completed, and the content problems need to go back to their respective talk pages. | |||
| The content dispute has been blown ''way'' out of proportion. For context, the majority of the concerns on ] are regarding "]", a sub-article that focuses on one aspect of Scientology, and that article recently sent to ] by ]; it was closed as "keep" on November 30 (basicly a ]). In this light, adding reported issues about sex is to be expected, and it should be expected that it will go into controversies that have arisen over time. Those who prefer that we didnt have an article about this topic are going to need to accept the community disagrees strongly. Obviously the article needs to comply with all our policies, and some of Cirts additions are questionable, but the new material was removed, and has not been restored. It is a content dispute, and a minor one at that. If the two sides are unable to find compromise, they should request a ] on specific issues, file a RFC or seek mediation (When I read the AE board last night, I thought Durova had offered mediation??). | |||
| fwiw, after reading the AE thread, I started to get involved to help restore stability. | |||
| If there are wider issues to do with the actions of ], a credible description of the problem needs to be compiled and taken to ] because there is nothing provided here now, nor was there any provided at ]. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></span> 00:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ====Statement by ]==== | |||
| I don't believe that the issues require arbitration. Tools like banning both editors in a dispute for a 24hrs period (for cool down) have not being used to the greatest extend possible. Also the extend of the dispute has not being determined properly. | |||
| Being this a controversial issue very few editors can honestly maintain a NPOV and there is a lot of head bumping. What's really happening is that some editors that have that have a pro-Scientology inclination (posting mostly positive Scientology info) were gone for a few months and those editors that had a critical anti-Scientology inclination (posting mostly negative Scientology info) had a leave to create great changes in the pages with little monitoring. Now that the pro-Scientology inclined editors are back they are alarmed and the headbumping started. Right now consensus have been established in many issues in the main Scientology talk page. Because the page is frozen real talk is taking place. I say let the parties resolve this. The current management tools for dispute resolution need to be used before arbitration is even thought of. ] (]) 00:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ====Statement by ]==== | |||
| I do not think that I should be on this list nor do I know much about scientology but I take the chance to tell my story: I was editing a couple of times in the ] article. I then got reverted by ] when removing a source that had nothing to do with Dianetics at all. ] is an editor who edits only ] articles, removing sources and such. This strange occurrence drew my attention to Spidern's activities and finally to where I commented that the occurrences reminded me of a fight between ]s, ] being one of them, in a sense (Diff . Several minutes(!) later ] informs me that I am a suspected sock puppet of "Highfructosecornsyrop" because - I assume - I edited in the article about ]. Unfortunately this is the only observation I can contribute, weird as it is. I cannot see that ] is abusing his Administrator tools but I share the POV that he is trying to discourage editors who do not share his POV while letting at least one ] (Spidern, who should be on this panel) go by. I would suggest to go through ]s and ]s contributions and make an assessment on the quality and POV of his numerous edits. On the ] article ] saw the point in the end. The article stands with my edits and the sources I found.] (]) 02:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ====Statement by ]==== | |||
| What I have seen here are reports of sock puppetry, of role accounts, of biased editing, and of people yelling at each other because "the other guy" is wrong. Which is to be expected, as the subject at hand makes a perfect drama sandwich. I like my sandwiches to have fresh mozzarella. | |||
| This is a matter of editors being able to control themselves in the name of academia. I am not blaming anyone for being non-neutral, nor for being uncivil. Both things are perfectly human, but that does not make incivility and biased editing appropriate behavior for Misplaced Pages. That is what makes Misplaced Pages editing so hard. Those who have been accused/convicted of biased editing should admit to their faults and work extra hard to write in the "they're an organization that has done stuff" style; even those who think they are perfectly neutral should work extra-hard anyway, only because this is such a heated subject. I know I probably couldn't write neutrally on the matter of Scientology if I tried. | |||
| Which is what makes civil, cooperative behavior so important. Those who have seen me on IRC know that I put my feet in my mouth on a frequent occasion. That makes me an anti-example on how editors should behave while disputing encyclopedia content. (To be fair, I try to be on my best behavior when making a case for something on Misplaced Pages). I am calling on involved editors to take it seriously, but not personally, when accused of non-neutral editing. If you have reacted poorly in the past, try in the present now to keep your anger from Misplaced Pages. Punch the wall if you have to. All editors must work cooperatively for the wellness of the article, even if they disagree. This is something I take very seriously, and the ArbCom should move towards restoring an editing environment conducive to scholarly collaboration. | |||
| Inevitably, people are not going to try, and they will continue down a path of arrogance and non-cooperation. Those people should be removed from editing, whether from Scientology topics or Misplaced Pages as a whole. It will be painful, but Misplaced Pages benefits not from people who sour the environment of academia. | |||
| May I also note that the resolutions from the COFS case are pretty weak. "Anynobody prohibited from harassing Justanother"? No kidding! | |||
| --] 03:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Clerk notes ==== | |||
| :''This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.'' | |||
| ==== Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (2/0/0/0) ==== | |||
| *Comment, it is not clear to me why the Community can not resolve the matter with the existing sanctions and other options available to the Community? Can you spell that out more specifically. ]] 19:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| **Accept. Thanks for the additional comments, they were helpful. Will look at all involved users per usual practice. ]] 23:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *Accept. I think there is all the history we could need to show that this area presents problems not typical of most content on the site. Even if it is only a matter of reviewing and consolidating material that has been covered in the past, it looks to me like a case in Arbitration, to consider the conduct of all named parties and any others, could be helpful. ] (]) 22:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | |||
| =<span id="REQ" />Clarifications and other requests= | |||
| {{Shortcut|WP:RFAC|WP:RCAM}} | |||
| ''Place requests related to amendments of prior cases, appeals, and clarifications on this page. If the case is ongoing, please use the relevant talk page. Requests for enforcement of past cases should be made at ]. Requests to clarify general Arbitration matters should be made on the ]. To create a new request for arbitration, please go to ]. '''Place new requests at the top'''.'' | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/How-to_other_requests}} | |||
| {{RfarOpenTasks}}<br style="clear: both;"/> | |||
| ---- | |||
| === Request to amend prior case: ] === | |||
| :{{rfarlinks|Bluemarine}} | |||
| ''List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:'' | |||
| *{{User|Durova}} (initiator) | |||
| *{{admin|WJBscribe}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|JMarkievicz2}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|Aatombomb}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|Wjhonson}} | |||
| ====Statement by ]==== | |||
| ] was banned for one year by the Arbitration Committee as a result of the case. Requesting that the Committee consider a very limited return to editing for the sole purpose of improving access to Misplaced Pages articles for people with disabilities. | |||
| Bluemarine (Matt Sanchez) is an editor in good standing at Wikimedia Commons and has been contributing useful material. Of particular interest is his voice recording work such as | |||
| ] - a reading of part of the ] article. Recordings such as this one make Misplaced Pages more available to people who have vision impairments. Mr. Sanchez has an excellent voice and the site could use more contributions of this sort. | |||
| Given his history, this is not something to consider lightly. So I propose a very limited unblock for handicapped access purposes only, with myself as his mentor. Mr. Sanchez would be permitted to place encyclopedic audio files at articles unrelated to his previous conflicts. He may format audio file templates and caption those audio files and may edit his own user space. That is all. LGBT issues, broadly defined, would be off limits. | |||
| During the early part of Mr. Sanchez's siteban he did sock and was aggressive toward other editors he had been in conflict with. So it's understandable if they have concerns or even outright opposition to this proposal. I have instructed him to refrain from responding if any conflict resumes. "Make it my problem," I told him. He agreed. When I found out he was socking earlier this year and asked him to stop, he pledged to. There has been no problem in that regard since April 1. So with a bit less than four months remaining on the clock for his ArbCom ban, I think this is a reasonable proposal. Hoping others agree. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 06:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :At the suggestion of an editor I'll make this clear: yes, Bluemarine would remain prohibited from his own biography article. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 22:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::To AniMate, preventing a resumption of old problems is a very high priority. The problems occurred primarily at one article and over one topic. Bluemarine will remain under a very tight restriction--unable to go to that article or anything like it, unable to edit in a normal sense, and unable to interact with other editors except at his own user talk. If you see loopholes in that, please articulate what they are so I may modify this proposal and close them. Respectfully, <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 00:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ====Statement by Jehochman==== | |||
| I think most requests to lift bans on condition of strict mentorship should be approved on a trial basis. At the first instance of trouble, the ban can be reinstated. I recommend that any uninvolved administrator be allowed to reinstate the ban if necessary, and the editor should be resticted from going anywhere near the areas where they formerly caused disruption. It is far better to have troubled users on the path to return under close supervision than have them sock puppeting or causing disruption through off site means. ] (]) 16:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ====Statement by AniMate==== | |||
| I'm opposed to this motion. Bluemarine wasn't banned for his article contributions. He was banned for rampant incivilty and homophobic personal attacks. Looking through his contributions, there are a total of 9 edits to ''any'' talk pages at Wikimedia Commons, and those are from February. Unfortunately, Duova's request does nothing to address the concerns about his behavior.--]]] 23:34, 7 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ====Statement by Horologium==== | |||
| I am strongly opposed to this motion. I was the only editor who provided diffs at the RFA which documented the harassment of Sanchez (and it was a rather extensive collection), so it's fair to say that I'm not opposing due to personal animus. (Discounting the personal attacks by Sanchez after I started blocking his socks after the ban went into effect.) However, I feel that he is not suited to working collaboratively, which is essential here. His contributions to commons are by their nature non-collaborative; they improve the project but do not require interaction with other editors. | |||
| In addition to his attacks on LGBT editors and his harassment of other editors through sockpuppets, he has demonstrated poor judgement; after being unblocked to participate in the arbitration case, he made a beeline towards ], which at the time was heading toward an an arbitration case of its own. This was after he had been explicitly instructed that the only pages he was to edit were his user pages and the arbitration case pages. He proved unable to comply with the guidelines then, and there is no indication that he will be able to do so now. I have had misgivings about dealing with the issue when the ban was set to expire; I really don't think we should move it forward. ''']''' <small>]</small> 11:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ====Clerk notes==== | |||
| ====Arbitrator views and discussion==== | |||
| * The arrangement proposed by Durova seems acceptable; so long as he stays well away from the topics and users around which the previous conflict revolved, I see no reason why Bluemarine cannot be permitted to do some useful wiki-gnoming. ] <sup><small>(])</small></sup> 16:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| * Awaiting more comments, but at first review the idea seems reasonable. ]] 17:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| * I agree, and offer a motion. ] (]) 22:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ====Motion==== | |||
| :''For this motion, there are 13 active Arbitrators, so 7 votes are a majority.'' | |||
| This committee's decision in ] and the preexisting community ban of {{User|Bluemarine}} are modified solely to the extent that Bluemarine is unblocked for the limited purpose of his making contributions related to increasing the accessibility of Misplaced Pages to users with handicapping conditions. This includes uploading encyclopedic audio files, formatting audio file templates, and captioning those audio files, as well as editing his userpage and talkpage, all under the mentorship of {{User|Durova}}. Except as expressly provided in this motion, the ban on editing by Bluemarine remains in effect. If Bluemarine violates the terms of his limited unblock, or makes any comment reasonably regarded as harassing or a personal attack, he may be reblocked for an appropriate period of time by any uninvolved administrator. If Bluemarine complies with these conditions for a period of 60 days, a request for further modification of his ban may be submitted. | |||
| :Support: | |||
| :# Proposed. ] (]) 22:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :# ]] 22:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :# Support with the additional comment that the case also found that Bluemarine had himself been harassed. Users are directed to read the below motion concerning Abtract; in the event that this motion passes, any resumption of harassment of Bluemarine will not be overlooked. ] (]) 23:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :# And support Sam Blacketer's additional comment as well. ] (]:]) 00:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :# ] <sup><small>(])</small></sup> 03:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :# Would have wanted longer as evidence (90 not 60 days); but also, would be more open to earlier return to other non-contentious areas. Probably balances out in the end. Hence support. ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] | ])</span></sup> 18:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Oppose: | |||
| :# | |||
| :Abstain: | |||
| :# | |||
| ---- | |||
| === Request for clarification : ]=== | |||
| ''List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:'' | |||
| *{{userlinks|Joopercoopers}} (initiator) | |||
| *{{userlinks|Peter Damian}} | |||
| *{{admin|Thatcher}} | |||
| *{{admin|Tznkai}} | |||
| I've also notified out of courtesy; , and | |||
| <!-- Substitute "admin" for "userlinks" if a user is an administrator. Anyone else affected must be notified that the request has been filed, | |||
| immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. The line for username2 can be removed if no-one else is affected. --> | |||
| ==== Statement by ] ==== | |||
| Peter Damian was given a limited unblock by Thatcher in the last 24hrs on the conditions: | |||
| # He may edit within his own user space. | |||
| # He may edit WP:RFAR and any associated pages (including arbitrators' talk pages, if appropriate) for the specific and limited purpose of appealing his ban and requesting an unconditional (or less conditional) unblock. | |||
| # He may contribute to and offer comments on FT2's discussion of "the situation" (Damian's edits to the Arbcom 2007 election, subsequent block, oversight, etc) at whatever page FT2 designates. | |||
| # He may not edit other pages without permission of Arbcom. | |||
| # Any harassment or wikihounding of FT2 shall be grounds for reimposition of the indefinite ban. | |||
| # Any admin may re-impose Jimbo's block for violation of these conditions. | |||
| # These conditions will remain in force until vacated by Arbcom. | |||
| He has since been blocked for attempting to improve the encyclopedia in mainspace. To my knowledge Peter's mainspace contributions weren't fundamentally at issue and he is widely regarded as a good content contributor. Have we only invited him back to participate in drama and/or dispute resolution, or whilst he's here should we allow him to contribute? I respectfully ask the committee to allow him to edit mainspace. Thanks --] (]) 21:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Statement by ] ==== | |||
| First, I apologise for contributing to the confusion over what were the terms of my unblock. There were originally two versions of this: one was the 'enough rope to hang with' version originally proposed by Thatcher. This was the one I had thought had prevailed until tonight. I honestly did not notice the new 'terms' proposed on my very busy talk page when I came home last night. Why would I return to Misplaced Pages otherwise than to edit articles? | |||
| I am happy to return to editing on the condition that FT2 and I are able to tread entirely divergent paths. That was what I thought I had agreed with Thatcher earlier, anyway. That includes FT2 not leaving sanctimonious and patronising and self-praising messages on my talk page. It is my view that he is an unmitigated disaster for Misplaced Pages, but many other people are now beginning to see that, let them carry the torch, I shall step aside from the madness of Misplaced Pages politics. | |||
| I am not interested in a public debate with FT2, as I have already stated on my talk page. I just want him to avoid me entirely. That includes not banning good editors such as Headley (I am happy if Thatcher or some other disinterested admin can look after that matter). It also includes him not interfering with my work on articles related tangentially to linguistics such as ]. Can I simply point out my PhD is in a linguistics related area? ] (]) 10:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Title fixed by - <font color="navy">]</font>''''' <sup><font color="green">]</font></sup>'''''<sub><font color="purple">]</font></sub> 19:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Statement by ] ==== | |||
| ''He has since been blocked for attempting to improve the encyclopedia in mainspace.'' - wrong: and it would be nice if you could show more respect for Tznkai. More accurately, he has since been blocked for violating condition 4 of the unblock parole. He was fully aware of this condition, and chose to break it, which is hardly a good sign ] (]) 21:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : Update: PD has resumed editing outside his parole, after an explicit warning. I conclude that he is deliberately violating it, and have re-blocked him for 12h. In my opinion Thatchers parole conditions are quite clear, and have been re-affirmed below, as has his desire to "punt the matter to arbcomm". Two arbs have commented below, but neither has explicitly suggested any variation in Thatchers conditions, so I believe they are still in force. I hope that other arbs will express an opinion on this matter, possibly even paying some attention to the numerous complains of slowness that have previously been raised ] (]) | |||
| ==== Statement by ] ==== | |||
| I believe (I hope) that this matter is already before Arbcom-L. | |||
| See my unblock message for additional background. | |||
| Peter Damian created his new account {{user|Peter Damian II}} and began editing ''before'' he had been notified of a formal unblocking and before his old accounts were unblocked. He was immediately blocked. When I was available to do so, I unblocked his accounts and prepared to write an unblock message contain some minimal conditions. However, after I unblocked the accounts but before I could compose my message, I was contacted by FT2, who strongly objected to the conditions I had proposed and pressed me to either leave Damian blocked until an agreement could be reached (notwithstanding the agreement I thought had already been reached) or to unblock but impose a series of topic restrictions to which I was opposed. If Damian had not jumped the gun, this could probably have been handled by email with merely an additional 24-48 hour delay in the unblocking. However, as Damian had jumped the gun, and as I had been contacted at just the wrong moment, I found myself forced into a corner. I could not leave things as they were, and I could not do what I originally planned to do. Therefore I restricted Damian to his user space and RFAR pending further word from Arbcom. | |||
| I note also that FT2 wants to prepare an explanation of all the events surrounding Damian's original blocking, the oversight, Damian's claims against FT2, and so forth. It is his right to do so, and I understand why he still feels aggrieved, but I have advised him to let the matter go, and I advised Damian not to contribute to the discussion, as FT2 seems to get under his skin in a way that other editors and admins don't. | |||
| I have never had a problem with Damian's content contributions. FT2 feels that after Damian's first block and reincarnation as "Peter Damian" this spring, that Damian began targeting topics formerly edited by FT2 that Damian had never before shown an interest in. FT2 feels this is a case of ]. FT2 also believes Damian is taking advice from banned user {{user|HeadleyDown}} and acting as his proxy. I understand why FT2 feels he was being targeted by Damian, and I agree there is an appearance of targeting at least in some edits, but Damian is a smart guy and was willing to take responsibility for the edits that were being suggested, so I think the charge of proxying for a banned user is not as clear-cut as FT2 thinks it is. FT2 asked me to restrict Damian from editing a broad list of topics for the reasons of Wikihounding and proxy editing; this is one of the conditions that I objected to. | |||
| It was my judgement that Damian should be unblocked with the understanding that he was being given enough rope to hang himself with. Damian has done a number of things since the original block in December 2007 that he needs to not do again in order to regain/retain his editing privileges. Either he understands this and will be able to edit, or he does not, in which case someone will eventually ban him again. I felt I was unable to act on my judgement, so I restricted Damian to his user space and RFAR and punted the matter to Arbcom. Perhaps I simply chickened out. ] 21:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ;Interesting meta-governance issue | |||
| Now that I've had a chance to think about it, this situation presents an interesting problem in meta-governance issues. I, as an admin, placed certain restrictions. In theory, any other admin could overturn or modify those restrictions, just as any admin can overturn or modify a block or page protections, subject to the normal requirement to discuss the matter first--either with the admin who took the initial action, or via some other means to attempt to gauge consensus in the matter. However, both the original block message by Jimbo, and FT2 as an aggrieved party, have invoked Arbcom. Now, William Connolley has that he will personally enforce a more lenient set of conditions, although he states other admins may act differently and he does not take the further step of formally modifying the conditions himself. Further, there is at least one case I know where the community nullified an Arbcom topic limit by declining to enforce it. Several admins have posted to this topic (including Bishzilla's big sister). At this point in the process, could a sufficiently '''bold''' admin modify the unblocking conditions without Arbcom approval? If so, is there any admin willing to do so? (Small-minded tangential comment: Several admins have voiced support for Damian after my unblock, where were they last month? Actually unblocking Damian was harder than just cheerleading, wasn't it?) ] 21:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ;Regarding FT2's condition #1 | |||
| There is no doubt that Peter Damian's response to FT2's block of {{userlinks|Phdarts}} was outrageous and out of bounds. However, I find I must adjust my own position on the block in this respect; it was not best practice of FT2 to do so. If I am going to stay true to the principles I have argued in a more recent case, I have to say that it would have been better for FT2 to request the assistance of another checkuser in identifying and then blocking Phdarts. However, the fact that it was not best practice does not make it against policy and does not excuse Damian's over the top reaction. | |||
| Moving forward, I have concerns with condition #1. We do not normally ban ''content'', but ''behavior.'' HeadleyDown behaved badly and was banned; FT2 detected Phdarts based on his behavior and follwed-up with a checkuser to confirm. However, should we ban all editors who share HeadleyDown's point of view? I have always felt that the concept of proxy editing turned on behavior. If someone is reinstating the edits of a banned user in the same manner and with the same disruptive behavior, that editor can be blocked as a proxy editor, in my opinion. However, if a second editor is taking advice from a banned user but is willing to stand behind his edits as his own, and more importantly is willing to following community norms of consensus editing, sourcing, and dispute resolution, I see very little problem there. I am therefore not clear on the reason for the proposed topic restrictions. Was Peter Damian editing the topics in a disruptive manner? ] 23:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Statement by ] ==== | |||
| <nowiki>*sigh*</nowiki> so much wikidramah. I ask the Arbcom to unblock him for the sake of the project so he can edit mainspace, on the condition that he will re-banned ] if he brings up the oversighted edits again. Also, a ban from interacting with TF2 or commenting about him could be appropiate. --] (]) 22:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| P.D.: As rootology said, FT2 should asked not to interact with him either, as the dynamics between the two of them will cause cause the issue to explode again --] (]) 23:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Statement by ] ==== | |||
| what enric said. Really guys - an arb should propose, and the committee should pass a quick motion lifting the ban, and separating FT and PD and the wiki wins. Or just copy this; | |||
| ==== Motion re Peter Damian ==== | |||
| 1) {{userlinks|Peter Damian}} is unbanned. | |||
| 2) {{userlinks|Peter Damian}} and {{userlinks|FT2}} are instructed to make an effort to avoid all contact with each other. | |||
| ] (]) 23:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Statement by ] ==== | |||
| A ban does not suggest that an editor is unable to make useful edits; it simply means that the disruption outweighs the positives to an unacceptable extent. Yesterday I was reviewing the ArbCom results and discovered to my surprise that Peter Damian had attempted to vote on a candidacy. He linked to his old user account, which stated that time time that he was banned by Jimbo Wales. So I struck through his attempted vote per ]. | |||
| I was and am concerned about the integrity of our election process; a different issue regarding the elections had reached the administrators' noticeboard the day before. It turned out that Peter had jumped the gun and exceeded the very limited terms that Thatcher had negotiated, although during the interim a fair bit of confusion arose between several longstanding contributors. A few of the exchanges were heated and I regret my part in that. | |||
| Now Peter Damian has exceeded Thatcher's terms again, and Peter's unblock request fails to acknowledge the legitimacy of the blocking rationale. If Peter wishes to persuade consensus that his presence is a net gain this is not the way to do it; a conservative and modest approach in strict accordance with the unblock terms would inspire more confidence. Unfortunately his recent antics probably also have the effect of reducing the pool of people who would give serious attention to his claims regarding FT2. | |||
| That said, I see no actual need for the Committee to intervene. FT2 has invited Peter to present his criticisms and evidence onsite; Peter can do that via a transclusion template even if all of his accounts are blocked, as long as one of his user talk pages remains unprotected. So an adequate solution is merely a technical matter. | |||
| :Since Peter's editing status has come under broader consideration, it's been high drama so far and the proposals here are unlikely to succeed. Everyone knows that Peter can contribute useful content. But can he accept limitations? Every seasoned contributor has been on the short end of consensus discussions and accepts those outcomes. All of us encounter ''no'' in some form. Peter has demonstrated a distinctly aggressive response to limitations. It is unreasonable to suppose he would become more collaborative if the Committee validates his persistent refusal to respect his ban or keep his word. The rest of the community is not a testing ground for shaky hypotheses; we are encyclopedia editors--not guinea pigs. I'd like to see him back as much as anyone; he has much to offer. But on principle I go for the opposite approach. Let him sit on the sidelines an appropriate period of time, then ease his restrictions in stages and under mentorship. I've seen much better results that way. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 03:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Suggestion from ]==== | |||
| If Peter has said he understands what went wrong now, and just wants to get back to editing articles and avoiding FT2, and FT2 wants to avoid Peter, why not just ask them to both just avoid/recuse from each other on anything (if someone has to Arb or Admin on Peter, it's not like we have any great shortage of people) so that everyone can get back to what they do best and end any silly drama? Probably just a quick up and down motion from the AC confirming that Peter is unblocked and asked to avoid FT2, and FT2 is asked to avoid Peter, and then a year of drama goes away and we get back a good content writer and free up FT2 to do his AC stuff on other issues. There is ] that such things work, asking ] to just avoid each other. in regards to myself and the other fellow in August... | |||
| <blockquote>''It's going to be hard for him if he gets addressed with critical or skeptical comments whilst trying to reacquaint himself with editing. That tends to be hard for anybody. I think your point's made, that you have concerns whether he should be considering proposing remedies, but I'd ask that the concern is dropped. It's been stated a few times; doubtless noted too. He'll have a fair chance, same as anyone else unblocked. If you'd be able to avoid interacting with him, it would possibly make it easier on him to avoid interacting back with you as well.'' - FT2</blockquote> | |||
| ...and it's worked out pretty darn well, I think. If everyone is willing to suck it up for the good of everyone else, then a year from now this could be a historical footnote and nothing more. <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">]</font> (<font color="#156917">]</font>)(<font color="#156917">]</font>) 22:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| '''Question for NYBrad''' Isn't it just a question of whether this is a Jimmy Wales block, an AC block, or a community-level block? It has to be one of those three, since there is no other one it could be. If it's Jimmy/AC under "today's" rules, the AC can decide if it's going to unblock or not; if it's a community-level the block, the AC can unblock, or the admins can. Under what other possible scenario could he be blocked? <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">]</font> (<font color="#156917">]</font>)(<font color="#156917">]</font>) 02:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Statement by ] ==== | |||
| I stumbled across this situation after the initial stage of back and forth block and unblock had proceeded, and the unblock conditions had been established. Peter Damian had voted before those unblock conditions were made clear, with the confusion described by Thatcher. I familiarized myself as best I could with the timeline of events with the Peter Damian II account, and then in my judgment as an unofficial election clerk, administrator, and plain old Wikipedian, I felt that Peter Damian did not have suffrage (yet) for this election, so I indented to votes and left a message on Damian's page to that extent, and watchlisted the page in case Damian responded. In the meantime a number of other editors had what I will politely call a back and forth on the Peter Damian II talk page. I left which I now regret targeting solely at Peter Damian. After that, I noticed a conversation betwween Peter Damian and MBisanz concerning an autoblock, apparently Peter Damian had attempted to edit the Medieval philosophy article. I Peter Damian to clarify if his unblock terms had changed, when he ignored me and continued to edit. Peter Damian gave what I felt was a rather , had continued to edit past my warning, so I for violation of his unblock terms. | |||
| In response to the inevitable accusation of process wonkery: I'm pretty much guilty. I think process can be important. I think everyone following process can make things all sorts of easier to solve. Especially with users under restrictions, a user actually following their restrictions tends to alleviate the concerns that come with unblocking a formerly banned user. Peter Damian needs to work within rules, not just to prevent any disruption he may cause, but to gain the trust of the broader community. Should he have to? I don't know. I do think however, it works much better he does.--] (]) 22:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| '''Update:16:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)''' | |||
| Peter Damian edited the Dark Ages talk page, was warned and then blocked by William M. Connolley. I've asked WMC to unblock Peter Damian, and have also suggested to Peter Damian a on that particular issue. As it stands ''currently'', I believe that there is an explicit and easy to follow editing restriction on Peter Damian, and we'll move so much faster and cleaner on this if he would follow that restriction until it is overturned or modified. I personally have no objection to the terms being modified in general, but I'm not exactly eager to modify terms while they're being violated willfully, as it appears is happening now. I don't know a thing about Peter Damian's article contribution - I don't particularly care to look, I ] he is useful there and that my fellow Wikipedians are correct when they suggest it is not at issue. I just think he should stop violating his terms so we can get to the business of fixing them.--] (]) 16:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| '''My position in summary''': | |||
| *Peter Damian needs to stop violating his terms, which at this point do not include anything in main or article talk space. | |||
| *Blocks are the logical consequence to Peter Damian's actions, and the two short ones so far implemented are reasonable, if not always desirable. | |||
| *The Committee should review Peter Damian's editing terms and modify them to allow some sort of article editing OR specifically refer the matter to the Community (Please don't, see below) | |||
| *'''The regular cast of Wikipedians surrounding Peter Damian and related fora and subsequent drama should kindly stay the hell out of it'''. I'll leave myself if so desired. | |||
| *Whatever is decided should attempt to give both Peter Damian and FT2 some sort of piece of mind and ability to work in the environment - vindication however, should be the lowest of all priorities. If one or both is unwilling to bury the hatchet (I do not care who) I would like both of them to at least stop talking about it for the time being.--] (]) 17:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Statement by ] ==== | |||
| I am preparing a statement to illustrate both the (noticeably narrow) topic area restrictions requested for peace, and the need for those restrictions. These do ''not'' impinge on Damian's historic mainspace areas of editing. They should ''not'' impede good faith editing, and are narrowly drawn with good reason for each. These are 3 specific topic areas that I would consider evidenced as being likely to be edited by Damian: | |||
| # As reflection/continuation/provocation/confrontation, or | |||
| # To advance the ] agenda of another multiple-banned user whose lead Damian has followed on multiple occasions. | |||
| <s>I will aim to post it tomorrow.</s> Posted below. ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] | ])</span></sup> 00:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ; Statement | |||
| Without recapping on everything, and focussing just on the mainspace restriction. Damian was blocked for a range of fairly serious and unwarranted abuse, from defamation downwards. He has repeatedly promised to cease, but has broken each of those promises. In some cases excuses were given, but the reality is, he has agreed to drop it but failed. Most times he "pushed the envelope" he denied that his actions breached any past promise or agreement. This led to a situation where more and more admins became reluctant to act on his actions. Indeed some were not sure what to believe, as I had avoided commenting to try and prevent a resurgence. He had multiple chances, and none was kept. Not one person who has reviewed the case, from Jimbo downwards, has endorsed that his behavior was warranted, and most have asked him to cease. Jimbo finally gave up on him a month or so ago, in an email sequence I was copied in on by himself and Damian (but did not participate in). | |||
| As a result, this time I would hope for a formal limit to be set, to prevent 1/ editing on three toxic areas '''(broadly psychology, pseudoscience, sexuality)''' as evidenced below, and 2/ '''any return to past "targeted" behaviors''' as evidenced by past breaches. These would be quite narrowly drawn and would not impinge on his historic areas of interest, and would be quite sufficient for peace. | |||
| ; Evidence of conduct following "second chances" | |||
| The behavior is that ''every'' unblock given on good faith or on promise of improvement or cessation, was followed by a return to this behavior. Most block appeals were marked by ''either'' at least one dishonest statement to present the request for unblock in a more favorable light, ''or'' by reneging afterwards. Examples: | |||
| * Unblock of Dec 4 2007: | |||
| ::* ''Basis of block'' - Blocked 17:28 Dec 4 ''("Smear campaign")'' . | |||
| ::* ''Statements made in obtaining agreement to unblock'' - Post by Damian to secure unblock 18:59 (<font color="darkgreen">"OK I'm sorry for that. I will delete it and promise to make no further remarks of that sort if you remove the block. Please."</font>) , and 19:34 Dec 4 (<font color="darkgreen">"Yes of course I agree. It was a momentary aberration. I apologise again"</font>) . Accordingly unblocked 19:37 Dec 4 ''("User agrees to stop the aggressive canvassing that resulted in the block")'' . | |||
| ::* ''Conduct after unblock'' - Unblock followed by repeated pointy questions (questions that tended to imply wrongdoing to a reader, see presumptive questions and answers 41 (a)-(c)), Damian argued to be allowed to ask further such questions, another admin advised instead to drop it having voted , argued and spiralled , moved to accusations of being bullied , recommences canvassing , told by various users to cool down . Frustrated at not being allowed by admins watching the election, to ask his further questions, he switched back, resuming his original allegations (the ones he had agreed were "abberations" and "promised" to be "dropped" to procure unblock), began posting advocative posts on them on-wiki 21:33 - 21:41 , and also escalated them by contacting third party "organizations" and websites about them. 21:44 Dec 5 . This was a reference to the same topics he had "promised" to drop as being a "momentary abberation" , and said to be part of a conversation with Giano whom he asserts he "know of old" as "some kind of friend" (<small>No FT2, he does not say that, read the diff, he says "is a sort of Misplaced Pages friend." Completely different meaning, as you well know. ] (]) 23:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)</small>) . | |||
| ::* ''(Further follow-up'' - Original blocking admin raised concerns 22:19 Dec 5 ''("While initially I think your unblock was a good one, based on recent comments I think it is not turning out so well... he appears to have moved his campaign to e-mail, and has 'contacted the relevant organisations', whatever that is supposed to mean")'' . Admin expresses concerns this is moving beyond the community's ability to resolve , Damian states 07:47 Dec 6 that he will <font color="darkgreen">"pursue this whole thing outside Misplaced Pages"</font> , writes an off-wiki blog post (which breaches ] and is both highly defamatory and highly misrepresentative) admitted as being sent to at least one third party, and links to it on-wiki 09:19 Dec 6 , and responds to Giano's warning that attacking is wrong, the allegations very serious, and to be "101% sure" before continuing by stating he is (12:39 Dec 6) <font color="darkgreen">"100% sure of the facts"</font> . At this point he is reblocked 12:43 Dec 6 ) | |||
| * Unblock of 13:15 Dec 6 2007: | |||
| ::* ''Basis of block'' - See above. Rightly or wrongly the above threats were made to "contact organizations" and were construed as being within ]. | |||
| ::* ''Statements made in obtaining agreement to unblock'' - Damian stated that he had intended to "contact organizations" but clarified he had not meant legal authorities (<font color="darkgreen">"obviously I withdraw the legal threat, if that was how it was construed. It wasn't, in fact, a threat."</font>), and at 13:07 <font color="darkgreen">"in any case I have withdrawn the threat"</font> . In response to being told that he must withdraw all threats of "authorities" of a legal or quasi-legal nature he responds 13:14 Dec 6 <font color="darkgreen">"Ok I no longer plan to pursue in any context."</font> , and 13:15 <font color="darkgreen">"Now please unblock"</font> . Accordingly unblocked at 13:15 Dec 6 ''("legal threat withdrawn")'' and ''"Thank you for stating that, I've unblocked you account and you're free to edit"'' . | |||
| ::* ''Conduct after unblock'' - An admin reblocks him (14:53 Dec 6), apparently for the same legal threats and harassment 14:56 Dec 6 . At 09:35 Dec 6 Damian had sent an email stating <font color="darkgreen">"I am posting at various activist sites, and spreading the word."</font> Damian protests he has removed his off-wiki defamation post (15:14 Dec 6) ; the admin says that in view of the seriousness and legal/defamation concerns he would rather ask the Foundation to review Damian's case anyhow . Damian states he has promised to drop everything and remove everything . The admin lays down conditions that would resolve this ''(basically providing information where his defamation has been posted so its removal can be checked, a clear statement of withdrawal and apology written for myself and any third parties, and complete "leaving alone")'' . I don't have full information here; what is evidenced is the bottom line: 1/ Damian was asked to show he genuinely meant it this time by means of providing information and formally withdrawing all allegations and external defamations, 2/ these were easy requests to meet if genuine, 3/ Damian clearly did not try to comply with even the easiest of these conditions (no apology for the defamation, no details of "organisations contacted" or "sites posted" for example), and 4/ the block was left standing. | |||
| * Edits of March 16 2008 | |||
| ::* ''Circumstances'' - Block evasion, "just decided to return" . Advised ''"This user has been blocked indefinitely from editing Misplaced Pages. Jimbo Wales has invited you to discuss this block and circumstances that resulted in it. Alternatively, I recommend you contact Misplaced Pages's Arbitration Committee <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>. You may not create a new account to avoid this block"'' . | |||
| ::* ''Response to notice of block and misrepresentations made to obtain unblock'' - Ignored the above (and reblocked ). Claimed this was fair since he had <font color="darkgreen">"stayed away from any controversial area"</font> . In reality, Damian had not "stayed away" at all. He had actually spent '''almost the entire intervening time''' (December to February/March) continuing exactly the same types of allegation he said he would "drop" and were an "aberration". As before he had been escalating them (there are posts on WR by Damian in that time frame, alleging some kind of cult involvement.) | |||
| * Unblock of May 2 2008 | |||
| ::* ''Circumstances'' - Arbcom appeal . | |||
| ::* ''Background of obtaining agreement to unblock'' - I requested (forcibly) not to be copied in on Arbcom's deliberations. Hence I have no idea what conditions if any were required, nor opportunity to present concerns to the committee about his conduct. I requested that the appeal be heard on-wiki (subject to measures protecting Damian's privacy) and was declined. Damian was sent an email with the following text: ''"Your unblocking IS conditional on you returning to normal productive editing and stopping the harassment and smear campaign. Many good editors edit controversial topics--if they did not, our articles on X would be edited solely by X-ists, for example. Statements of the form, "You edited X so you must be Y" constitute personal attacks and coarsen the environment for all editors."'' Although unblocked May 2, my question about presentation of evidence was first responded on May 5: ''"WJScribe and Peter Damian are getting their evidence together. When we get it I will let you know."'' This promise was not kept and the concerns were allowed to slide even though by that time, barely 3 days after unblock, renewed conduct issues had already become visible. | |||
| ::* <p>''Conduct after unblock'' - Within 3 days of unblock (when I was still being told it was under discussion), Damian had already started to visit the topic area of ], an area he had never previously edited but which he believed I was strongly involved. This was almost certainly fed to him by a banned user who had long sought to proxy edit on that area again (see below) and whom 1/ Damian associated with, 2/ I had repeatedly removed from that area for POV warring, and 3/ had an ] and subsequent site ban related to sock-puppetry and POV warring.</p><p>In other words, not even 3 days after unban, Damian had dug up old areas I had edited, and (in collaboration with a serious vandal with a past history of POV warring at that topic) had begun targeting those (]).</p> | |||
| * Unblock/reblock of July 1 2008 | |||
| ::* <p>''Circumstances'' - {{userlinks|Phdarts}} was blocked as a reincarnation of a virulent arbcom-and-community-banned POV warrior, HeadleyDown. HeadleyDown had previously sought to POV war on sexuality (zoophilia under 3 or more different socks, moving to pedophilia in December). Damian "went ballistic", alleging support of pro-pedophilia editing. This was deeply offensive. Thatcher's comment probably says it all: . A request was posted for evidence , which led to these two posts . That evidence is available. </p><p>What is notable is, 1/ Damian was co-editing with a known community-banned POV warrior, on NLP and extreme forms of sexuality, 2/ these were precisely the topics that user had been pried off POV editing before (sexuality, psychology, pseudoscience), 2/ when the POV warrior was blocked, tried to thwart this by means of "smear" type accusations. In fact the user concerned is recognized as a serious and persistent source of harm to the project by many users over a period of several years, and known to recruit users I have blocked by email (3 previous times now, Damian is the 4th, all evidenced on-wiki).</p><p>As with all HeadleyDown behavioral evidence, if asked I will demonstrate ] that a number of Damian's edits were proxies for banned user HeadleyDown to return to his targetted area "by the back door". Specifically, 1/ HeadleyDown has tried to recruit people to edit these topics before (documented and provable), and 2/ on several occasions, editing matters that are very specific to HeadleyDown, including those mentioned in previous arbcom and checkuser decisions from 2005-06, turn up in ''Damian's'' edits on ''HeadleyDown's'' preferred target topic areas - sexuality, psychology, pseudoscience.</p><p>The project does not need to endorse topic editing by someone who 1/ has strong grudges, 2/ with very strong advocative views and "something to prove", 3/ who follows in the mentorship of a banned POV warrior, 4/ moving into sensitive areas of that banned user's preference such as pedophilia, or areas that banned user has repeatedly tried to return to such as pseudoscience/psychology, and 5/ when so editing, repeating edits based upon ideas of that banned user.</p> | |||
| * Other behaviors | |||
| ::In the context of a year-long campaign of confrontational smear campaigning, the following are worth noting: | |||
| ::* Aug 11 posts a "Dear FT2", ] worded as the <font color="darkgreen">"good-faith guardian and defender of the NLP pages"</font> that he wishes to AFD all such pages . In fact I have barely edited any of these since 2005-06, over 2 years ago, a fact checkable by anyone, save for brief administrative interventions once or twice. | |||
| ::* Sept 4-5 (see ], may be collapse-boxed): Another user in an unrelated inquiry, asks me to look at ], as a possible sock-puppet . I identified this as one of about 80 - 90 sock-puppets being operated by an unconnected sock-user on pedophilia related topics . Damian states that the user should not be blocked 18:20 Sept 4 (<font color="darkgreen">"I wouldn't if I were you, i.e. want to avert nuclear war... So, FT2, don't even think of it, OK?"</font>) , 18:22 (<font color="darkgreen">"What is FT2 up to now"</font>) , 00:44 Sept 5 Thatcher confirms the sock ring . He later confirms and blocks another 35 socks 03:56 Sept 6 . Damian's response to my block of this prolific sock-puppeteer is <font color="darkgreen">"Let war commence"</font> and <font color="darkgreen">"Next step is ANI, next step after that is Sloan Foundation and so on"</font> . Damian's final post on the thread alleges <font color="darkgreen">"banning or blocking those who disagree with your POV"</font>, and posting of <font color="darkgreen">"nonsense psychobabble and unsourced promotion of dubious sexual practices"</font> . A final post references ]'s right hand henchman and mass murderer <font color="darkgreen">Lavrentiy Beria</font> . | |||
| ::* Sept 17 - After Jimbo's ban, Damian appealed to Jimbo himself. I was copied in on some of this (Sept-Oct 2008), but again, did not participate. In summary Jimbo points out that the very appeal email where Damian claimed to never have made defamatory allegations, included just that. Jimbo described the email as ''"astonishingly rude"''. | |||
| ; Evidence of poor editing or proxying for banned POV warrior (at times done to prove a ]) on targeted areas | |||
| * (Will add tomorrow) | |||
| ; Statement to Arbitrators on requested editing restriction and and banned user "HeadleyDown" | |||
| I ask that the Committee take the requested restriction more seriously than they might think, and will evidence this shortly (collating data right now). Before being an arbitrator, I was first a very experienced administrator with 7 - 8 months of experience on this user and their activities after his final Arbcom mentors' ban (prior to my RFA), and 2 years since RFA. In the same sense that some are "expert" on Grawp and some of our ex-arbs are "experts" on the pedo sock farms, HeadleyDown is the edit warrior I am probably most familiar with of any administrator or Checkuser on the wiki. A large number of users have raised his socks as consistent concerns, he's had multiple arbcom related and community bans over the years; it's far from just "my word on it". The blocks issued in the first year after his ban were issued by other admins and checkusers, not myself, meaning I had to collate evidence, and also it had to convince others. He has a very well established history of recruiting others (especially discontent users) to make subtle "slanting" posts, post his preferred material, or take slanted POV views for him. | |||
| At this point, Damian is associating with, collaborating with, and evidenced as adopting the approach of, this banned user in topic areas that banned user had subtly POV warred and has tried ''repeatedly'' to return to, since his ban in 2006. Headley's editing is not a small problem. It's not requested lightly. This is an ex-user who should not be permitted ''in any way'' to edit those areas, whether directly or through others with points to make. I put it that strongly, as an experienced editor. | |||
| I am collating evidence as stated. If asked, I will also add summary evidence on HeadleyDown, if current arbitrators are unfamiliar or believe this view to be over-stated or less than accurate, ''in any way whatsoever''. | |||
| ; Evidence of what exactly Damian was alleging in December | |||
| Presented in private to Arbcom (will send tomorrow), as is common for defamation issues. CC'ed to Peter Damian. In brief, this was far from being "mild" and he has changed his "story"; it was a lot more serious than Damian has represented publicly, and he has been untruthful and misrepresented it ever since. If I am mis-stating this, or the evidence I present by email does not clearly show the Committee that this is an accurate statement or reasonable interpretation, I would like a specific comment by Arbcom to that effect. Otherwise let this comment stand. | |||
| I also ask formally that I am not CC'ed into any Arbcom discussion of this request (as a party). I requested the same in May. I will be filtering them out regardless in case of mishap. | |||
| ; Requested restrictions | |||
| Damian's behaviors have been somewhat stressful, for an unusual reason:- as a party, I have had to restrict myself to avoid all interaction on them wherever possible and allow Damian the freedom to act and speak as desired on this rather than just confront the behavior. Still the behaviors continue. I'd like that to end. I have no interest in Damian otherwise, nor have ever had. '''Requested restrictions''' to keep the peace in light of past history: | |||
| # Peter Damian to be '''restricted''' from editing on just the three areas he has never historically edited, and which are inspired largely by this dispute - psychology (including fringe psychology), pseudoscience, and sexuality. In each of these, problems are evidenced. | |||
| # '''Avoidance''' of all contact and discussion, on and off site, including by inference or "hinting/alluding" (he's done this a lot), "]". Peter Damian should avoid behaviors that may be interpreted as harassment, provocation or confrontation, ''on or off wiki'', per ]. | |||
| # '''Effective enforcement''' provisions so this need never come up again, bearing in mind the extended history of doing so (and persistently ]). | |||
| Significance of #1: | |||
| : Damian and I have not had issues on his main areas of content. For example, he seems to enjoy history and philosophy, I've not been hugely active in the kinds of matters he edits. In fact the only areas of content we might fall out on seem to be those related to our disagreements, areas banned user HeadleyDown had moved into (especially where Damian has followed), and areas I've once edited and where Damian's interest is a reflection of that. In other words "chosen in part due to our disputes". | |||
| : HeadleyDown has edited (disruptively) on everything from psychology, to politicians, to sexuality.....so any area Damian follows his lead he may be accidentally inserting biased edits (HeadleyDown had a prior RFAR for political topics, edit/sock warred on speed reading, and so on, as well). If needed I will evidence this thoroughly to the Committee (to avoid ] on this banned user I would prefer to give evidence in private). | |||
| : Realistically, the areas we are likely to fall out on are any editing related to the areas I have removed HeadleyDown from -- psychology, pseudoscience, and sexuality (broadly interpreted). I would be fine with a return to full content-related editing in all areas, with a continuing restriction on those three. | |||
| : Most of Damian's content work is fine. None of those 3 is his core area of editing, and his editing on these was skewed by the viewpoint of one of Misplaced Pages's more virulent pov warriors; having removed that user once, the prospect of having to deal with him by proxy does not appeal, and that is what Damian began doing following earlier unbans. | |||
| ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] | ])</span></sup> 02:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Statement by Uncle uncle uncle ==== | |||
| The previous Jimbo block stated: "User says he is leaving. Good timing. Please do not unblock without approval from me and/or ArbCom" | |||
| <P></P> | |||
| Now Jimbi has said: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Peter_Damian_II&diff=255936935&oldid=255936051 | |||
| <blockquote>I responded to an inquiry by Thatcher saying that I neither support nor oppose this. I should not be considered any obstacle in this situation. Apparently there is an agreement which resolves all the outstanding issues. I am hopeful for the future.</blockquote> | |||
| Why is the arbitration committee looking into it? | |||
| Are they really parsing the original block statement "without approval from me and/or Arbcom" to mean that now that Jimbo has removed his opposition that the ArbCom approval must also come to satisfy the 'and' portion of the requirement? | |||
| <P></P> | |||
| Does every single issue that people have a disagreement on need to be decided by the to the Arbitration Committee? | |||
| Can't anyone blow their own nose any more? | |||
| ] 00:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Statement by ] ==== | |||
| Just a procedural note that I have, per his request, renamed ] to ] as a partial solution to the password issue. As a more general point, one way or another this user should be able to edit articles. It seems ludicrous to me to have unblocked this person but not to allow him to get on with editing content, something clearly to the project's benefit. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">] ]</strong> 10:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ====Statement by SlimVirgin==== | |||
| I ask the ArbCom or Thatcher to allow Peter Damian to edit in mainspace, as of now. FT2 seems to be exercising some kind of veto here, which isn't appropriate. I've several times been in a situation where users who tried to out me were unblocked without my being consulted, never mind asked, and I know how hurtful it is — e.g. Jimbo unblocked Brandt without telling me, and FloNight unblocked Poetlister — so I agree that FT2 should have ''input''. But that shouldn't amount to a veto, which is what this currently looks like. Peter Damian's mainspace edits are good, but he's having to reply to content queries on his talk page, instead of on article talk, and another editor has had to offer to add Peter's contributions to articles for him, after Peter posts them on a subpage. It's making the project look silly. Please allow Peter to edit in the mainspace until this gets sorted out. <font color="Brown">]</font> <small><sup><font color="darkgreen">]</font><font color="Light green">]</font></sup></small> 00:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| =====Question for FT2===== | |||
| FT2, in your responses, you invite people to ask about any conduct of yours that might have been less than appropriate. I'd like to take you up on that. | |||
| I was surprised to see you write on July 4, 2008, in response to a question from Alex Bakharev, that you didn't know your early edits to ] had been oversighted. You wrote that you couldn't answer Alex's question about the oversighting because you no knowledge of it — "this being the first mention of any such to me." | |||
| These were the edits Peter Damian tried to draw attention to during the 2007 ArbCom elections, because he felt they showed a POV that he saw as problematic. David G oversighted them in December 2007 after Peter linked to them on his blog. | |||
| What you seem to be implying in your reply to Alex is that David took it upon himself to oversight your edits, and that he acted alone. You didn't ask him to do it, and he didn't tell you he'd done it. In fact, the first you heard of it was in July 2008. | |||
| Is that correct, or have I misunderstood the chronology? <font color="Brown">]</font> <small><sup><font color="darkgreen">]</font><font color="Light green">]</font></sup></small> 02:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ====Patience exhausted from Bishonen==== | |||
| Can the committee please promptly decide whether this ban/unban is within their remit? Is it really up to FT2, a highly involved user, to speak for the committee and to rescind the unban agreement already reached, through Thatcher's efforts? ? It's intolerable to keep Peter Damian dangling, and unable to edit articles, while FT2 composes his statement. It's unseemly, this arrant contrast between the tender princess-and-the-pea consideration of FT2's ancient grudge shown by the committee (I assume, "the committee" in the sense of the majority of arbiters?), versus the blind eye they (again, presumably most of them?) turn to the situation of a banned, snubbed, ignored, and mobbed user—a hard-working expert contributor, yet—with a certain propensity for losing his temper—and wouldn't you have by now, dear reader? I urge the committee to approve, for the duration, the original unblocking terms, according to which PD would be able to edit freely: the terms which Thatcher was pressured to abandon at the instigation of FT2. Please apply these unblock conditions as originally planned. When FT2's statement eventually appears, the (IMO absurd, but whatever) ban from editing mainspace can always be reinstated, if FT2's statement should give a basis for it. ] | ] 01:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC). | |||
| ==== Statement by Snowded ==== | |||
| Peter has made outstanding contributions to content over the years and his absence from editing reflects badly on WIkipedia. The edits which got peter banned in the first place were no worse (in fact milder) than many a comment and exchange which goes unpunished on controversial pages daily (come to those on Ireland if you want examples). While Arbcom members may need some additional protection they also need a degree of robustness and should not need protecting like some tender and fragile orchid. I fully endorse the comments by Bishonen above. --] <small>]</small> 09:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ====Comment II by Bishonen: Brad's motion==== | |||
| The central part of Newyorkbrad's motion below reads: "Peter Damian is directed not to interact with, or comment in any way (directly or indirectly), about FT2 on any page in Misplaced Pages." This is an unusually one-sided remedy. Having to some extent followed the exchanges between PD and FT2 over the past year or so, I urge that the motion be made symmetrical. Something like this: "'''Peter Damian and FT2 are directed not to interact with, or comment in any way (directly or indirectly), about each other on any page in Misplaced Pages.'''". I've grasped that you "do not approve of certain aspects of Peter Damian's conduct", Brad, but do you approve of all aspects of FT2's conduct? Whether or not, you are surely aware that not everybody does. It's unreasonable and unjust to leave FT2 free to "interact" with PD—say, by posting accusations and self-praise on PD's talkpage—while enjoining PD from "interacting" with FT2—say, by replying. The motion offered has the smell of compromise and exudes unease. It reads uncomfortably. Its central idea of a single individual "interacting" is incoherent, since "interact" is a word expressing reciprocity. See ''Oxford English Dictionary'', ''interact:'' "To act reciprocally, to act on each other." Peter Damian and FT2 have been acting reciprocally, acting "on" each other. Please provide for this in the motion. ] | ] 19:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC). | |||
| ====Comment II by Joopercoopers:Brad's motion==== | |||
| I agree with Bishonen above. What's needed here is separation as far as practical between FT2 and PD. We are left with a little problem though in that FT2 has presented considerable evidence above which Peter Damian should, in all fairness, have a right to reply to. However, there's clearly a potential flash point in that. I suggest Peter gets a week to formulate a reply and then a line is drawn firmly under the whole affair and the motion comes into effect. If there is any follow-up to be made it must be made by others after that time. Regards --] (]) 19:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ====Comment by GRBerry==== | |||
| I was one of the administrators trying to clean up this mess last December. I've watched it since, though largely stayed out of it since then. Having watched FT2's conduct in past periods when Damian was unblocked, I agree with the prior commentators that the two should ''both'' be restricted from commenting on one another. Indeed, FT2's conduct toward Damian and descriptions of Damian were in my eyes part of the problem even ''before'' Damian was first blocked, and they haven't really gotten any better. ] 21:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| P.S. I doubt the email evidence from last December is still particularly relevant, however I still have copies of all that was sent to me. GRB | |||
| ====Comment II by Tznkai==== | |||
| Since comment IIs are all the rage, here I go. | |||
| Anyway you can make a provision that everyone is asked to "drop it and move on?" The primary disruption comes from our obsession with the Peter Damian-FT2 relationship and related fora, an effective motion will probably come much faster without everyone getting their two cents in on whether Peter Damian or FT2 is more unreasonable.--] (]) 21:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Re: Thatcher - I would/will, but not unless/until its clear ArbCom is taking a pass and and I've figured out if anything resembling a community voice on the matter (I don't need consensus, just to be able to sort out if there is one). That having been said - I've already modified your unblock terms, when I blocked Peter Damian for 12 hours instead of indefinitely, and WMC shored up that action as precedent by doing the same thing.--] (]) 22:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Meta-comment by ] ==== | |||
| Could we avoid bringing in the whole wiki-drama cast? I don't think that benefits Peter Damian or anyone else. | |||
| ==== FT2 response to comments ==== | |||
| ''Damian'' | |||
| : About 4 years, 2 arbcom cases, some 50 - 100 blocks (mostly ''not'' by myself), an Arbcom mentor ban, at least one community ban at ANI (possibly others too), a range of fabricated or wilfully mis-stated cites and ] evidenced at Arbcom and used to back up his year-long POV editing campaign and sock-warfare in 2005-06, a large amount of checkuser work (again mostly ''not'' myself), and multiple arbitrator and mentor views from 2006, all say that HeadleyDown is about as distant from the concept of "good editor" as they get. | |||
| : I've offered you the evidence, you've reject it out of hand. I offered it to other seasoned admins with pov war and sneaky sock user experience, they have broadly agreed. | |||
| ''Thatcher'' - | |||
| # <p>To confirm, I'm not "aggrieved". It's irksome; it's also completely ancient history if it ends. This RFAR is to ensure it does. If no behaviors are actively being a problem, I've ignored Damian completely. If I am engaged by him, then I have mostly ignored, and sometimes provided evidence and responses to his claims, for the community. There have been enough comments by Damian that warrant responses. That said, if Damian drops his conduct damaging to the project, and his personalized campaign, then I want nothing more.</p><p>Unfortunately the risk of damage if he edits these areas needs evidencing (I've not done this in the past year mainly on the failed hope that if ignored he will cease); also the evidenced history of his involvement with the community-banned user and his own problematic editing in areas of interest and edit warring related to the banned user, need serious considering. (And sorry this case has been tough for you.)</p> | |||
| # There isn't any kind of norm or practice, that an admin who has worked on a banned user's reincarnations, should cease doing so because another hostile user disapproves. Headley's conduct ''as an editor, sock-puppeteer, harasser, abuser,'' and ''pov warrior'' is why he was banned. In his case, those edits were disruptive and damaging to content. Their proxying, or proxying of his wishes, or proxying of his suggestions, would also be very likely to be damaging. Damian has shown he is willing to do so uncritically, without heed as to ] or ] arising as a result, and championed the self-same versions of text that were deemed POV by others in the past. Diffs being collated to show this concern, in preference to hearsay. | |||
| ''SlimVirgin'' | |||
| : <p>No "veto". The ban said "Arbcom or Jimbo only". Jimbo stated in email he was stepping aside. This meant the correct venue, and only venue left (as Jimbo had ''also'' told Damian in private), was Arbcom. As well, Arbcom also handles "unusually divisive matters between admins", and privacy based evidence (eg defamation/harassment cases). Both apply.</p><p>It is also unlikely that any other venue will actually ''resolve'' this (as opposed to allowing yet another chapter to play out). For example, a number of admins are unsure whether Damian is under some kind of Arbcom protection or not, and need clarity of the position, which can also only come from Arbcom.</p> | |||
| :: Your follow-up question is addressed on my talk page. It's not directly salient as it doesn't touch on return or editing restrictions, so I'll answer it separately to this motion. | |||
| ''Bishonen, GRBerry'' | |||
| : <p>No "grudge". That's a Damian invention. (See "personal commitment" below.) I do have the ordinary objection of any user to defamation and smearing, but even then have avoided responding for the most part. All in all I've probably handled it rather better than most would. I've pretty much ignored it except to respond with factual points. Considering the allegations made, that's not bad at all. If you (or anyone) feels ''any'' of my conduct was in the slightest bit less than appropriate, please cite a diff or section or link for me, rather than simply asserting them.</p><p>Disclosure: In December I posted a note that the questions were presented by a user with a block for inappropriate questions; this because the questions were presumptive and contained ] that were not obvious to a naive reader. In April I posted to Damian a confirmation I was avoiding the email thread in order to protect his (Damian's) own privacy and fair hearing. Both were checked by others for reasonableness. If ''any post, email or communication'' I made shows undue conduct, please link it. Thanks.</p> | |||
| ''Comment to arbitrators on editing restrictions'' | |||
| : Moved to main statement. | |||
| ''General comment'' | |||
| : I have ignored Damian beyond the norm. I have at times responded to comments, by discussion, explanation, or evidence. If the matter is closed, I'm fine with that. That's what most here want, as well. Damian has said multiple times he wishes his concerns to be heard and for debate in public. There comes a point it's right to do so, and beneficial for the community to see the evidence to judge for themselves. A high standard of integrity is expected and has been upheld; so I'm fine evidencing this. (Again, if ''any user'' feels my standards have ever slipped in this dispute, even under provocation, then please do point me to ''the specific diffs or sections'', where it's felt substandard conduct took place, and state what exactly is improper about them so they can be addressed.) | |||
| '''''Personal commitment''''' | |||
| : <p>I'm fine with a restriction on commenting on Damian, if this would help bring it to a close or anyone isn't sure if I would avoid him. I've avoided doing so wherever possible anyway (unasked) so this isn't new. I hereby undertake if any issue arises again, to avoid comment provided other admins will enforce the established norms ], ] and ] where these have been breached. If I am asked to explain some matter, I will do so, then drop the issue. If this is not sufficient I will seek normal ] rather than engage Damian. In all circumstances I will avoid Damian or commenting (other than in dispute resolution) on Damian, provided that it is understood I cannot prevent him involving himself with me, nor guide his words and actions if he does so. That is a commitment I give regardless of any motion in this case.</p><p>(Note that for those on WR, I will do my best there but since it's a site where gossip spreads fast, my non-response relies upon Damian's own avoidance. I will not speak to or about him there, as best I can. However this may be difficult if he were to post comments on me, or if others ask about matters where we have disagreement. I ask others to address any such, or to step in, so I don't need to. And ditto for the WR user Docknell, for reasons I don't need to go into.)</p> | |||
| ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] | ])</span></sup> 01:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Statement by ] ==== | |||
| <!-- Leave this section for others to add additional statements --> | |||
| ==== Clerk notes ==== | |||
| *Recuse - party --] (]) 22:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Arbitrator views and discussion ==== | |||
| * The request for clarification is noted. This situation should be addressed, but I am not certain what is the best procedural vehicle to do so. Please note that I will have very limited online time this weekend (per comment on my talkpage the other day), so no inference should be drawn from any delay in my posting further here. All persons are requested to observe appropriate decorum in connection with this case. ] (]) 22:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| **I see that there is ongoing controversy and drama. All statements and relevant information should be submitted (here or via e-mail) within 24 hours so that we can decide whether the committee has a role here, and if so, what it is, as the current confusion should not be allowed to continue. We also need a complete understanding of each party's position as to what action (if any) we or the community should take, if not already provided. ] (]) 16:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| **I have completed my review of this request and offer a motion. ] (]) 22:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *My understanding of the email exchange with Jimbo, Thatcher, and myself, Peter Damian, and FT2 was that we advised that FT2 and Damian needed to avoid each other. If Damian is unblocked it makes much more sense to have him writing articles then debating a year old conflict with FT2. Damian has told us that FT2 comments push his buttons the wrong way so I think that putting them in contact with each other now will scuttle his comeback before it starts. ]] 22:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| **FYI, there has been zero substantive discussion about Peter Damian's unblock request by arbcom during the past week. All of the discussion about the matter was between Thatcher, FT2, Damian, and Jimbo, except for a few comments that I added yesterday when I joined the discussion. So the Committee has no background information about the recent situation. ]] 23:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| * Further discussion about this is needed before I can make up my mind as to what to support here. ] (]:]) 00:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| * It's unfortunate, but I think we're going to have to start generally enforcing the word limit; the lengths of some of the statements above are rather excessive. ] <sup><small>(])</small></sup> 01:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ====Motions==== | |||
| 1) Any ban, block, or editing restriction currently in force against {{User|Peter Damian}} is terminated, and Peter Damian is permitted to edit Misplaced Pages subject to the terms of this motion. Peter Damian is directed not to interact with, or comment in any way (directly or indirectly) about, {{User|FT2}} on any page in Misplaced Pages. If Peter Damian violates this restriction, or makes any comment reasonably regarded as harassing or a personal attack, he may be reblocked for an appropriate period of time by any uninvolved administrator. Peter Damian is also strongly urged to refrain from inflammatory rhetoric concerning FT2 on other websites. If Peter Damian wishes to regain access to his original Misplaced Pages user account, a developer is requested to assist him in recovering his password. | |||
| :Support: | |||
| :# Proposed. I do not approve of certain aspects of Peter Damian's conduct but believe that this motion may resolve the concerns. ] (]) 23:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :#: I will review whether any modification of the motion is warranted by FT2's statement. Peter Damian is requested to comment on this issue, by e-mail if appropriate. ] (]) 02:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :# Support, except the last sentence. Thatcher explored the issue and was told by developers that it was not done now and other arrangements were made that seem satisfactory to Peter Damian, I think. ]] 00:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :#: If there is concern about the last sentence I will strike it; I believe there is precedent for this remedy in the ''Giano'' case, but it is not integral to the proposal and I do not want it to divert attention from the main issues. ] (]) 00:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :#:: I seem to remember reading that, after the Giano case closed with the request to developers to help Giano recover his password, the developers said it was not possible in practice. Certainly Giano never regained access to his original account. ] (]) 00:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Oppose: | |||
| :# Prefer 1.1. ] <sup><small>(])</small></sup> 01:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Abstain: | |||
| :# | |||
| 1.1) The editing restrictions currently in force against {{User|Peter Damian}} are rescinded, and he is permitted to edit Misplaced Pages. | |||
| Peter Damian and FT2 are directed not to interact with or comment in any way (directly or indirectly) about each other on any page in Misplaced Pages. Should Peter Damian interact with or make any comment concerning FT2, or make any other comment reasonably regarded as harassment or a personal attack, he may be blocked for an appropriate period of time by any uninvolved administrator. | |||
| In addition, Peter Damian and FT2 are strongly urged not to interact with or comment about each other on any other website or public forum. | |||
| :Support: | |||
| :# Let's leave no loose ends here. ] <sup><small>(])</small></sup> 01:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :# With regard to FT2's request for topic limitations on Peter Damian's editing, this can be addressed should future editing indicate significant ongoing problems. I hope and expect that this should not be necessary. ] (]) 02:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Oppose: | |||
| :# | |||
| :Abstain: | |||
| :# | |||
| ---- | |||
| === Request to amend prior case: ]=== | |||
| :{{rfarlinks|Alastair Haines}} | |||
| ''List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:'' | |||
| *{{admin|Jayvdb}} (initiator) | |||
| *{{admin|L'Aquatique}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|Alastair Haines}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|Ilkali}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|LisaLiel}} | |||
| *{{user|Abtract}} | |||
| *{{admin|Ryulong}} | |||
| ==== Statement by ] ==== | |||
| L'Aquatique has recently blocked Alastair, and while the block is reasonable, it is very awkward that she blocked him, as there is a lot of history between the two. | |||
| Here is the chain of events that led to the block: | |||
| * Initial changes which set off the chain of events to the block: | |||
| * Alastair Haines , and posts to the ]. | |||
| * Ilkali | |||
| * Alastair Haines | |||
| * Abtract | |||
| * Alastair Haines then one chunk of the disputed diff. | |||
| While this was happening, Alastair did another unrelated revert: was a revert of , as demonstrated by diffing from - there are no changes in the Sikhism section. | |||
| Abtract has been reverting Alastair on articles with no other involvement or engagement on the talk page. The evidence submitted by and about Abtract was disregarded in the case remedies. | |||
| :'''Update''': There was a more clearly pronounced interaction between these two users on ]<sup class="plainlinks"></sup> | |||
| :An anon made , which Alastair ; Abtract the entire paragraph ten days later, AH two and half days later, Abtract again with no discussion on the talk page; Alastair waits 7 days ''as he is supposed to'' under the editing restrictions, and , Abtract , and after 20 minutes without discussion on the talk AH and Abtract, requesting that he state his reasons for removal. Abtract with the warning and once more. At this point, Abtract has reverted four times, with "remove unnecessary detail and pov on motives" as the basis, repeated in the edit summary on three of those occasions. | |||
| :Finally someone else steps in, and . Abtract later , over a period of 40 mins AH provides some on the talk page and asks for other contributors to provide other examples, and two weeks later Abtract the uncited passages. Days later AH restored the passages, but has not provided citations yet. | |||
| :There have been only a few cases of reverts occurring on this article in the edits that Alastair has been a significant contributor. In each case it looks like the matter was quickly settled. | |||
| :If this was an isolated incident, it would be fair to assume that Abtract had a sudden and only brief interest in this topic on September 12, since he didnt follow up on the talk about the sources. | |||
| :Sadly, is the third article I have found where he has popped in for a visit to an article that AH has contributed to. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></span> 03:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Further update''': ] shows a similar situation. An IP a section from the article, AH days later, and then Abtract 10 hours afterwards, again with no prior history on that page. | |||
| :He also appeared at ] a few days after Alastair and does a intro rewrite, and it was the which sparked an edit war on ]. | |||
| :<span style="font-variant:small-caps">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></span> 07:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Ryulong has extended the block due to the way that Alastair was managing his user talk page. Again this is justifiable, as the talk page management was not good. A big there. | |||
| I think there are three amendments that would help this case work better: | |||
| # Blocks should be from uninvolved admins | |||
| # Ilkali, LisaLiel, Alastair Haines and Abtract should not permitted to revert each others edits, or if that is too strong, they must accompany any revert with justification on the talk page. | |||
| # Alastair Haines should be given no room to move in the management of talk discussions, as he is his own worst enemy in that regard. This is primarily in regard to his own user talk, but a broader restriction would be preventative of similar problems occurring in other namespaces. He must not remove or later comments left by others, except by way of removing an entire thread after a reasonable period. (i.e. archiving) | |||
| @L'Aquatique, the mediation last time did not end well. Those scabs were healing, but now there is blood everywhere again. It is suffice to say that any warning or block by you will not be headed; I wish it was not so, but that is life. You may be right that another admin would have been rejected in the same way; it depends on whether they were guided by the fact that Alastair is a '''''massive''''' content creator, and should be treated respectfully even when he has broken the rules. I am not suggesting that you dont treat him well, but you are not uninvolved, at least from his perspective. I hope people can see past the arbcom situation, and see that his heart is 100% in the right spot.<br/> | |||
| I'm not disputing that the block was fine, I very quickly ] that, and because Alastair had said on his talk page that he wanted to be left alone, I emailed him privately and told him the block was fine and started brainstorming on how to resolve this. FWIW, he is in full agreement on the first two of my suggestions being helpful - the third will come as a surprise to him, but I hope he sees the intent behind the third is not malicious. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></span> 06:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| @Miguel.mateo, please review the diffs I provided above. Alastair is under editing restrictions that prohibit him from making two reverts on the same page for ''a week''. Take note of the unrelated revert I mention under the bullet points. There can be no doubt that he broke the technicalities of the editing restriction, but the circumstances of the reverts placed Alastair in another situation where he was being overruled by the number of opponents. He needs to learn that he can not go it alone, and that he must take these problems to a noticeboard for admin consideration/intervention. The first block was fine, and escalating blocks will hopefully address this problem. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></span> 08:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| @Ncmvocalist, L'Aquatique is involved due to an attempt to mediate on ], when it quickly escalated from there to L'Aquatique taking Alastair to arbcom, due to the mediation going wrong in lots of ways, and much of that was beyond the control of the mediation. It was probably heading to arbcom anyway. We can predict that unnecessary drama happens when involved admins continually address the problems arising with a valued user. It looks like a vendetta even when it isnt. It should not be too much to ask that involved admins to take a matter to ] rather than tackle it themselves. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></span> 08:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| @L'Aquatique, I didnt mean "tackling" in a bad sense ("addressing" would have been a better choice of words), and I think it is fair to call him a good faith contributor. I've revised the sentence; sorry that it came across wrong. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></span> 11:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| @Kirill, Alastair has survived two months since the case closed ''without a block'', and the original problem ''this time'' was a few reverts, and it was accompanied with discussion on the talk page. And '''''now''''' you see no alternative but to ban him for a statement he made '''two months ago''', two days after the arbitration case closed? Even if he still holds that opinion, and he holds that position beyond the context of the discussion it was framed by, surely you can see room in his comment for a better outcome? <span style="font-variant:small-caps">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></span> 21:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| @Ncmvocalist irt Abtract: My point is not that Alastair is a saint, nor was I concerned about Abtract as I wasnt aware of the outcomes of the recent case. Wikis are not perfect, and passionate editors often end up in scuffles - Religious topics are a hotbed. I am trying to establish that Abtract was very involved and it was an oversight to exclude him from the remedies of the last case, and it is one that Abtract appears to have taken advantage of. | |||
| :The interaction after the last case is , , , and . In all cases Abtract appears after Alastair and without any prior involvement or discussion, except in the case of Gender of God, where the has been no involvement since the RFAR closed. | |||
| Based on my analysis, there are not enough pages with interaction to establish that Abtract is wikistalking, and the intro rewrites have been good, however the number of similar pages suggests he is occasionally dipping into AH's contrib list, and removing an entire paragraph without discussion or explanation, as happened on ] and ], is a concern. | |||
| I would like to see more effective remedies looking forward: a level playing field and an uninvolved referee. I think the amendments I am seeking should help, but would welcome other ones. As the ] page has caused this to flare up two times, it would be reasonable to page ban them all from it, however Alastair has indicated to me that he is happy to move away from that page voluntarily if I jump in and keep an eye on it, so maybe that will be suffice to prevent major drama again on that page. | |||
| <span style="font-variant:small-caps">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></span> 07:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| @Ncmvocalist irt suggested Abtract remedies: I agree with "must not revert AH"; that will help, but to be effective, they all must not revert each other. They are all good faith editors with various issues when working together - there should be no reason that they need to revert each other, as it will always end badly. | |||
| However limiting the Abtract 1RR to only "religion" articles misses the point. Alastair is a scholar, and often comes in and helps on a really wide array of articles, especially where linguistics and languages play a part (which is everything except Pokemon?), and Abtract has followed him to pages which are not religious in nature. Abtract's stated opinion of AH during the last case, and even here again, is that he feels that this constant monitoring of AH is his duty, from which we can deduce he will continue to follow AH to the ends of the wiki. As this is the second instance that he has pushed buttons of another editor, 1RR should be enforced across the wiki to limit the opportunity of this happening to a third editor. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></span> 04:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| @Abtract: you "" at the top of a section, which is not what that the {{tl|fact}} template is for. ] restored your misuse of the template when he reverted me, and now AH removed only your erroneous use of the template. You have now removed four paragraphs from this article that were missing inline citations, which of course has spurred us into action to find appropriate sources, etc. This poking is annoying, especially considering you are doing the removals without disputing the accuracy of the text in question. We are very willing to discuss and critise these paragraphs; AH has already critically assessed parts of the text that you removed, as have I, and sources are appearing on the talk. You could have obtained the same result by asking nicely. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></span> 01:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Yet another update''', Abtract has now an interesting '''''and sourced''''' paragraph that was added to ] a few hours ago by a user with four contribs since April 2007: {{user|T dawwg}}. Alastair and I welcomed the user, and then Abtract reverts their addition with an edit summary of "rv v". Please do something about the motions that were proposed or I will need to ask administrators to start helping instead. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></span> 08:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Yet one more update''', Abtract has now started at me unprovoked, and also not factually as my indicates. After my reply, he starting to take an undesirable interest in my ] list that I linked to in my reply, promptly breaking the syntax in one of my most recent new articles. ] was not helpful on an article that needs delicate handling. --<span style="font-variant:small-caps">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></span> 02:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Statement by ] ==== | |||
| I agree with many of John's points- I particularly like the idea of not allowing the major parties to revert each other although in practice that may be difficult to regulate. In addition, although it is somewhat unorthodox, we must put some method in place to prevent Alastair from entirely having his way with his userpage: during this dispute he erased many of my statements and then selectively quoted sections out of context in a method that, frankly, stretched my ]. If for no reason other than transparency's sake, he should not be allowed to do that. Removing comments is one thing, removing them but replying to them makes it incredibly difficult for someone uninvolved to understand what is happening in a neutral way.<br> | |||
| I do not agree with the statement that "uninvolved admins" should not be allowed to place blocks. For one thing, who decides who is involved or not? I've had no contact with Alastair since the end of the arbcom case, I forgot to remove Gender of God from my watchlist and I happen to notice a revert on it- not by Alastair but by Ilkali. I looked into it, noticed that there was an edit war, gave both parties the same warning. Ilkali apparently listened to me, Alastair did not. His claim that I have it out for him is patently, and obviously false and I expect anyone looking at this situation to realize that I'm being honest here: I don't give a damn what he does, as long as it's within policy. Thems the rules of the game.<br> | |||
| It's easy to say that an "involved admin" shouldn't have made the call, but is anyone here actually disputing that it was the right call to make? From his comments and reactions to other admins that have dropped by it's clear he would have reacted this way to any admin who blocked him. Since it was the right call, it doesn't feel relevant to me who made it. ]<font color="#5c9e83">]</font>]</font> 04:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Response to NewYorkBrad: I do believe it was done in a way intended to mislead. If you get a chance, you should take a look at the history of his talk page, it's pretty much spelled out there. ]<font color="#5c9e83">]</font>]</font> 05:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Response to John Vandenberg: obviously, I disagree. This user may contribute a lot of content but that does not, as he seems to think- put him above the rules. This is not a newbie who does understand our social mores, this is an experienced editor who has been here long enough to know better- he's been the subject of an arbcom case and is on civility parole, for goodness sakes! There is no reason why we should be accomodating him. ]<font color="#5c9e83">]</font>]</font> 07:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Response to JV's response to Ncmvocalist: I'm tackling a good faith user? Don't you think that's a bit of a stretch...? ]<font color="#5c9e83">]</font>]</font> 10:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Response to Kirill: while I do believe that his behavior has been inappropriate and his conduct towards me obnoxious- I don't know that we're to the point of a yearlong ban yet. If we had newer evidence of his intention to wholly disregard his arbcom sanctions, I would feel more comfortable about it. Just as we don't block vandals at AIV who haven't edited recently, we shouldn't ban someone based on three month old diffs. He should be coming back from his block what, tomorrow? Let's see what his response to all this madness is. ]<font color="#5c9e83">]</font>]</font> 05:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I also just want to point out the thread on this page's talk. It's really quite telling. ]. ]<font color="#5c9e83">]</font>]</font> 00:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Response to Abtract's most recent post: that's not the same edit- the material is completely different. I don't think that qualifies as violating his arbcom restrictions- clarification from an arb might be helpful here. ]<font color="#5c9e83">]</font>]</font> 12:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Note by uninvolved ] ==== | |||
| * I made a note re: the inappropriate removal of L'Aquatique's comments at Alastair Haines talk page prior to the block extension. | |||
| * I'm not too fond of the idea of changing the existing restrictions to reduce the number of administrators who may enforce them in this particular case. | |||
| * Will look into Abtract's conduct with one of the involved admins - I don't think the majority are aware of this so will notify them too. | |||
| ] (]) 07:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ;Response to Newyorkbrad | |||
| <s>Both myself and LessHeard vanU looked through this and per ], we couldn't find similar issues between Abtract's conduct here and that found in the Abtract-Collectonian case. Rather, it seems a case of reverting with minimal communication. Cheers, ] (]) 18:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)</s> | |||
| After further review and discussion with a couple of others, I've struck my above post (and apologies for the delay). This has taken a lot of time already, and I note the further edits that were made since my last comment below - John Vandenberg has presented enough to demonstrate cause for concern. I also support the second proposal, and prefer it being enacted by ArbCom rather than by the community. ] (]) 10:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Further restrictive remedies may also be necessary. ] (]) 16:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ;Response to John Vandenberg on Abtract-Alastair Haines evidence | |||
| This is indeed concerning - but it does not help Alastair Haines case in a great way either. A bold edit was made by an anon and improved by AH, and Ab reverted. The next course should've been discuss this edit rather than reverting over the bold edit. The fact that instead of discussing this, AH chose to see his restriction as an inalienable right to revert, is problematic. This is especially given the principle on editorial process, and the finding of him edit-warring, and what the remedy was intended to target. This seems to have occurred before Ab popped up in the third article (which although was later, isn't looking good either). ] (]) 03:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ;My view | |||
| :Wikihounding can have a detrimental effect on valued contributors, and I don't think it's wise to set a limit or quantity of pages before contributors are protected from it. This is especially so for editors who've recently had restrictions imposed upon them to prevent wikihounding. That said, I think a similar expectation needs to be imposed on editors who were restricted on reverts. | |||
| :AH's first editing restriction (that is specified in his remedy) has two requirements - 1/ limit of one revert per page per week, '''and''' 2/ discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. AH on more than one occasion has failed to discuss content reversions on the talk page and he needs to ensure he complies with the restriction to the letter. I disagree with Newyorkbbrad's comment below that suggests that there has only been one violation; merely asking another user to open a discussion isn't helpful , nor were the reverts on ] as I noted above, nor was . The fact that there was a lack of enforcement does not mean that there has been compliance with the restriction and what it was intended to remedy. The lack of enforcement is a problem, which is why I still do not feel comfortable supporting a change to the enforcement of the remedy. There are certainly times where there will be an appearance of a vendetta, but this wasn't a borderline call or a one-off violation. | |||
| :Therefore, I see a few things that can happen here: | |||
| # Alastair Haines | |||
| ## is banned per Kirill's motion below. If that fails, then the following: | |||
| ## is indefinitely topic-banned from editing ]; | |||
| ## is topic banned from religion articles for a period of time that is definitely greater than one month; | |||
| ## is banned from removing or refactoring other people's commentary on any page. The only times Alastair Haines may move commentary is when he is archiving his talk page, per Jayvdb above; | |||
| ## is banned from reverting edits made by Abtract. Should he violate any of these bans, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling | |||
| # Abtract | |||
| ## is banned from reverting edits made by Alastair Haines; | |||
| ## is limited to one revert per page per week (excepting obvious vandalism) <s>on religion articles</s>, and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. Should he exceed this limit or fail to discuss a content reversion, or violate the ban, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling. | |||
| My view so far. ] (]) 03:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ;Additional comment to John Vandenberg | |||
| I can appreciate the point raised and agree; I've therefore struck the on religious articles bit from the remedies I suggest that are imposed on Abtract. | |||
| On another note, both yourself and Casliber have requested for some consideration, but before that, both of you may need to assist him so that these concerns are resolved. This is the second time there are a problems, but more troubling than that (which is perhaps the cause of my reluctance), Alastair's statement(s), particularly the one below, seems to demonstrate a lack of understanding or even appreciation of the fact that many users have found problems with his conduct. There's a much greater need to make him understand that he has an obligation to make time: he needs to ensure that any edit he makes are in full compliance with his restrictions. Of course, I expect that he may find it inconvenient to spend time to ensure complicance, but his current editing style is a problem - what is needed is a substantial change so that this will not be a problem in the long-term. Absent of (1) an understanding of what those problems are, and (2) a willingness and ability to deal with them, the change will not happen and this situation is likely to deteriorate; he may find himself preveted from editing, whether voluntarily or non-voluntarily. He'll probably be given rope this time, but it's all in his hands as to how he will use it to his benefit or detriment. ] (]) 05:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ;Comment to Abtract | |||
| The statements by Anish and Redtigerxyz have not been helpful due to a failure to look into these incidents carefully enough (or for failing to understand the wider conduct concerns here). Personally, I'm under the impression that this would be resolved if Kirill's motion was enacted (but I'm waiting to see if Jayvdb/Casliber/someone can get through to him). | |||
| But that aside, I wasn't impressed by your own revert behaviour (and lack of accompanying discussion) either: - this was despite the revert being disputed for the ''third'' time (regardless of how many days apart) . If you made an undertaking to discuss your content reversions more appropriately (in fact, discuss as opposed to revert repeatedly), and confirm that you will strictly stick to it, then the sanction suggestion may be unnecessary. ] (]) 15:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ;Comment to Anish | |||
| I've been discussing this with the person who initiated this request, and I don't think we'd have gotten beyond a greeting if either of us predecided any relevant issue. I hold a wider view; my above comment notes under what circumstances a ban may not be necessary. However, to call a ban unjustified in this case is at a stretch and confirms my doubts regarding your understanding of the issues and concerns here. Rather, what's being considered (or should be the only things left to consider) is the the requests for clemency (which is reasonable), and any relevant factors/evidence. I am aware of the large amount of time and effort others are putting into this to try to get those factors, but it's all in AH's hands now. ] (]) 16:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Statement by uninvolved ] ==== | |||
| I do question the first block given to Alistair. Not only the admin who did the block is inappropriate, the block itself is not justified. Please check the evidence given in ]. ] (]) 07:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| @John: I am not disagreeing with you, but the evidence provided by the admin who blocked Alastair is here: ], the second evidence is a revert Alastair did on his own edit. I think the admin in question had definitely quick fingers to act. Then check again to her answers in ], she still believes that the second evidence provided is "within policy". Anyway, you have shown extreme professionalism so far in this case, I know it is in good hands. I will leave you guys alone now, I am sure you all need time to analyze. ] (]) 08:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Dear admins, apologies for interrupting once more, but you can see some evidence of Alastair being attacked blindly (even when he can not defend himself) by one of those people that want nothing but to get him off Misplaced Pages, here: ]. Thanks, ] (]) 13:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| @Ilkali: unfortunaly, we are all entitled to give our opinion, and in this case we, "the cheerleaders", are not the only one that felt that it was not handled properly. The fact that you and your buddies are constantly assuming bad faith against Alastair will never fix the issue. Why do you have to think that a random comment from an IP, in this talk page, has to come from Alastair? BTW, I suggest you to read ]. ] (]) 15:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| @Casliber: Please do me a favour and review again, L'Aquatique blocked Alastair and ''later'' she asked another admin to review that block. Look at the evidence she placed in Alastair's talk page: the second Alastair's revert is a revert he did to himself. When I asked why she counted that as a revert, her answer was "that is the policy". I honestly believe that she acted too quickly against Alastair, but that is for you guys to judge. ] (]) 04:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ====Statement by ]==== | |||
| Just to clarify my position. I have edited ] many times over the last year or so - indeed it is there that I had the misfortune to meet Haines for the first time. Naturally, the article is on my watch list; when Haines (or anyone else) makes unhelpful edits, I revert them. I would not support any relaxation of the restrictions on Haines who likes to use his undoubted intellect and knowledge to control the content of article he feels he owns. Nor would I support any restrictions on other editors to allow Haines more freedom to act - he is a bully who needs less, not more, freedom imho. ] (]) 10:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| '''Response to Newyorkbrad''' | |||
| My views on Haines are, I hope, well known and well documented: he is a bully of the worst kind - he uses his superior intellect, knowledge and charisma to overwhelm lesser mortals. I first had the misfortune to meet him on ] and then again on ], both articles have been on my watch list for some time. I was highly relieved when he was restricted but frankly not too surprised when he completely rejected the restrictions as being beneath him and certainly not to be considered when he edits. His aggressive stance towards any admin who crosses him is all part of his arogant I-walk-on-water style; be warned this guy will not change his spots unless forced so to do, or you banish him. So far as my actions are concerned I want to be entirely open here: in an unrelated case (with C........n) I was guilty of some petty revenge-seeking minor edits mainly designed to annoy Cn. I admit it, I am human - I felt wronged, I was hurt, I hit back. I have learned my lesson and would draw your attention to (and the two by Cn that preceded it) to demonstrate that I did not take a golden opportunity (handed to me on a plate) to pursue the vendetta any further. My interactions with Haines have been quite different: mainly they have been on articles where we share an interest (I don't edit much nowadays because I have other fish to fry which explains my infrequent visits to certain articles), I may well have edited on a pop-in basis on new article because I do watch Haines' edits occasionally (I stress occasionally), but I only edit, or revert, if I think the edit or rv is fully justified (someone above said my changes to intros were "good", I think I quote correctly). I watch his edits because he is a convicted bully and it is all our duty to stand up to bullies - if I had time I would watch more of his edits. I am guessing that quite a number of the editors, admins on this page also watch his edits (indeed one or two may well watch mine), so be it. I have been at the brunt end of his bullyboy tactics and I know what it is like; protecting others where I can occasionally (but only if I disagree with his edits, be clear) is a worthwhile cause - much better than being bitchy with Cn. My attitude to Haines is what any decent editor would support if they knew all the facts - as you guys surely must. ] (]) 16:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| '''Respose to Ncmvocalist''' | |||
| I am disappointed that you consider it necessary to restrict me (and others) for standing up to a '''convicted''' bully. If, each time someone stands up to Haines they are restricted, this simply gives him more freedom when surely he should have less, for the good of wp. If no-one stands up to him, he will just continue on his merry way - is there no system for checking what he is doing? The last thing I want is to be bothered policing Haines but no one else seems to be doing so. | |||
| I am also keen to know on what grounds restrictions might be placed on me - I can find nowhere that says that watching edits is wrong, indeed: | |||
| ''Many users track other users edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. '''Proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Misplaced Pages policy''' or correcting related problems on multiple articles. In fact, such practices are recommended both for Recent changes patrol and WikiProject Spam. The contribution logs can be used in the dispute resolution process to gather evidence to be presented in requests for comment, mediation, WP:ANI, and arbitration cases. The important component of wiki-hounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason. If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions.'' | |||
| That seems to support my, meticulously polite, actions in checking that Haines is not continuing his bullyboy ways (a violation of policy if ever I saw one). | |||
| Do what you will but I urge you to think very carefully about the message you give to him and other bullies "It's OK, we will protect you by restricting how ordinary editors interact with you so that you can act pretty much as you want". ] (]) 09:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| '''To anyone who thinks Haines may be reconciled to acting within the restrictions''' | |||
| Please read . ] (]) 00:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| '''And as though to prove the point''' | |||
| followed less than two days after . He is currently limited to one revert per week per article but, as he keeps on telling us, he has no intention of depriving wp in that way. ] (]) 00:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| '''Thoughts about resticting me''' | |||
| I see that a rather draconian restriction on me has been proposed. Even the proposal must give considerable heart to Haines ... were it to be enacted, you will never be able to control him or his cheer-leaders again. Please think carefully about the message this would send him and the freedom it would grant him. I have no particular desire to keep an eye on Haines but, unless someone does, he will continue his bullying rampage and get his way on all articles he chooses to own. ] (]) 07:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I am so saddend by the likelihood that this restriction will be enacted. Do you guys actually read the diffs? On what basis am I "wikihounding" Haines? This simpy beggars belief. I watch his edits, I make changes to articles, if I find them interesting, if I feel they need it and I certainly stand up to his bullying ... where is the harm in that? Where does it say I must not do that? Can anyone point to an edit I have made on a Haines related article that was not a good faith edit? I think not. Think about this very carefully; Haines must be laughing all the way to his "get out of jail" card. ] (]) 22:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Statement by ] ==== | |||
| I don't know if I'm actually an involved "party" in this. I reviewed the reverts Alastair Haines made after L'Aquatique requested someone to review her block of Haines. I looked into the block and made my comment on his talk page, and warned that if he continued to purposefully remove the comments left by L'Aquatique to skew the view of the discussion in his favor, I would prevent him from editing his user talk page. When I returned to Misplaced Pages yesterday, I found that he persisted in his activities and did the same to my message, I decided that the course of action was to (instead of protecting the page) block his account for 48 hours from that point such that the editing of the talk page was disabled. This added 12 hours to his block in total. If others feel it is necessary, I can restore the original block length and keep the user talk page editing disabled.—] (]) 11:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Statement by ] ==== | |||
| Problems like this will continue as long as Alastair wilfully and explicitly disregards the sanctions placed on him (). L'Aquatique's actions in this case were fair and generous. Alastair's violation of his 1RR was objectively verifiable, leaving no room for bias, and she did not even block him at his first offense; he was given a warning and contemptuously rejected it. The only reason we would restrict L'Aquatique from enforcing Arbcom's rulings is to protect Alastair's pride, which is at best unnecessary pandering and at worst encourages an attitude that has already proven itself disruptive. ] (]) 13:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *Re : At the point where , (which pushed him over 1RR) had been the most recent for over two hours. I object, as I did on my talk page, to the insinuation that I did or ''would have'' violated my 1RR sanction. There is no evidence of such. ] (]) 22:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *Re : Would you endorse a requirement that Alastair both: 1) accept that he violated his sanctions (thereby warranting a block), and 2) agree not to do so in future? If an editor is allowed to openly ignore the sanctions placed on him with no greater result than an occasional short-term block, then what was the point of those sanctions? ] (]) 22:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *Re : Alastair has actually violated the restriction twice; once at ] and once at ]. The fact that he accused the blocking admin of corruption in the latter instance clearly indicates that he still does not consider himself subject to the 1RR restriction. ] (]) 15:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *Re : I have never called for Alastair to be banned, and on multiple occasions have even argued against it. You, like Buster7, have come into this matter knowing nothing about the circumstances and with the sole interest of defending your friend by demonising everyone you perceive as his enemy. ] (]) 15:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| I continue to insist that the best first step is to ''talk'' to Alastair. It is far too early to consider a ban. In my opinion, all of the problems with this editor stem from his pride and inability to view his own actions critically (this is not helped by the presence of cheerleaders like ], ] and ]). By far the best approach is to either shake this attitude or persuade him to change his editing pattern so it cannot cause conflicts. ] (]) 15:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| The following was recently added on Alastair's talk page: | |||
| What exactly are you enlisting these people to do, Alastair? ] (]) 12:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Statement by uninvolved ] ==== | |||
| The fact that Administrator L'Aquatique is blind to the negative personal involvement and the animosity that she has toward Alastair is most upsetting. She went after him as her very first act as an Administrator. It was almost as tho she had him in her sights from the very beginning. She <s>should be banned</s> should recuse herself from any contact whatsoever having to do with Editor Alastair Haines. Her animus toward him certainly seems irreconcilable. --] (]) 14:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Statement by ] ==== | |||
| Everything I had to say about this case was said in the . -] (]) 15:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Statement by not-impartial ] ==== | |||
| I have been too busy to examine the article material in depth, and I am nonpartial as I am a friend of Alastair ''(so if anyone feels this means this should be disregarded so be it)''. I note that (a) if I were blocked by an editor I had previously had a confrontation with after (b) ''two'' editors I had previously had run ins with turned up to revert changes of mine in a tense situation, I would be pretty enraged. Now whether this is justified or not is another matter, but what I do see here is a heated situation. Many actions are done and later regretted in the heat of the moment, so I would take this into account with respect to events and statements after this point. I appreciate L'Aquatique did ask another admin's view before blocking, which was a wise move and I respect that, but I do think in these cases that even the semblance of a COI can be bad - i.e. another admin should have done the blocking. End result, what am I asking for? A plea for clemency for Alastair, who is a valued contributor and has much to give. Cheers, ] (] '''·''' ]) 13:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Statement by ] ==== | |||
| So long as ArbCom members appear to endorse unsustainable criticisms of my editing, that amount to personal attacks, there will be problems. | |||
| Since my editing is, and always has been impeccable, it is easy for me to overlook any restrictions placed on me. They only ask me to do what I've always done anyway. There is no evidence, anywhere, that suggests I have done otherwise than act in a way that any reasonable member of the community can find consistent with improving and maintaining Misplaced Pages, either in incidents refered to above, associated with the original ArbCom case, or in any other editing at Wiki. | |||
| I have absolutely no problem with the restrictions ArbCom proposed, except two—one practical, the other more abstract. Regarding practicality, it is simply unreasonable to keep a diary of all reverts I make, and consult it. I simply work too quickly for that. I revert multiple times and quickly while copy-editing and receive no complaints. Additionally, when people repeatedly vandalise a page, it is impractical to keep a diary of what they did and when. Again, I never receive complaints about this. | |||
| That brings us to the abstract issue. L'Aquatique, Ilkali and Abtract are not credible witnesses, all have demonstrated personal animosity and gaming the system. These things are obvious even to casual observers. All make a point of seeking to paint a picture of my editing as though it had been broadly agreed to contain questionable elements. This is simply not the case. No credible witness against my editing has ever been brought forward. | |||
| I will not deal with it here, but the ArbCom case bearing my name, and its conclusions, are not credible evidence of anything much, for a range of reasons. This is a serious problem, that I would like to help ArbCom members resolve in another forum. Current handling of the case is creating embarassment for people (namely the arbitrators) that I would like to spare from that. I love volunteer workers, and can imagine few jobs more challenging and uncomfortable than addressing the sorts of disputes that are accepted as ArbCom cases. | |||
| However, while a handful of people's untennable misrepresentation of my editing (which are simply personal attacks) remains uncorrected, a fundamental principle of Wiki editorial cameraderie is being blatantly "bucked" in front of the noses of responsible parties. Unsurprisingly, the ''ir''-responsible parties are making, and will continue to make, sport of this oversight. It's only my problem in the sense that I have to experience it, in reality it is the problem of my fellow Wikipedians to protect me from it. Is it easier for it to be endured, or for it to be corrected? I've been enduring, please correct it. ] (]) 04:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| PS I just remembered, I did make one edit that was ''not'' aimed at improving or maintaining Misplaced Pages. My apologies to everyone for my playfulness on that occasion. ] (]) 04:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| PPS I've just been glancing over this page. ArbCom members have ''way'' too much work. I am embarassed that I only notice this now. I think the decision in my case was unhelpful, but with the deepest sincerity, now I don't care. ArbCom members have volunteered to do a task that is almost impossible, as far as I can see. Make whatever decisions seem best to you in the limited time available to you. I am ''not'' going to hold you accountable to live up to what are, in my revised opinion, unreasonable expectations in the circumstances. You ''have'' made it difficult to support you, but support you I will. I have plenty of resources of wise and good friends at Wiki who can ensure peace and that you are not troubled again. My apologies that you have once more been troubled by this case. ''Very'' inconsiderate. Make sure you get enough sleep, stay faithful to real life friends and take breaks when you need them. I doubt you'll be hearing from me again, but I'll be thinking of you. Cheerio. ] (]) 09:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Comment''': Sam has lead the way for me to say something more helpful. Please feel free to change your vote and ban me instead. Your comment that my ''opinion'' regarding the ArbCom case is not a matter of enforcement, strikes me as profoundly Wikipedian. It is extremely easy to respect and strive to co-operate with that kind of thinking. "I am willing to endure your criticism if you are willing to endure mine." That's a realistic, mature and egalitarian view of life isn't it? How it bears on details of the case itself is interesting food for thought. Best regards to all in your deliberations. ] (]) 04:06, 28 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::'''Response''': I think it is important that I acknowledge that I've heard Florence' comment. I may well have misread it, but if I've heard correctly, it extends a great generosity—a legitimate opportunity to influence a vote. I may be in error to do so, but in the nicest possible way, I take it personally—as a gift. There are many ways to honour that, and I will pursue as many as I can. Perhaps being more open to influencing votes is something I should think of incorporating into my "style". Everyone else does it! ;) There are complexities, but I think that's all I should say, right here, right now. ] (]) 06:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::'''Accept''': I accept the proposed urging of ArbCom to not interact with Abtract, and will cease as of this post. I am heartened that there are no restrictions proposed for him, save in reference to myself. I would protest on his behalf if there were. He has a keen mind and clear expression, I wish him well in his studies ... and at Wiki. ] (]) 10:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Statement by ] ==== | |||
| Although, I have never been involved in this dispute nor with the other editors, I have been involved with Alastair many times and hence in the interest of wikipedia, I feel compelled to make a statement. Any proposal to ban Alastair or put any restrictions on his edits, spell a big disaster for Misplaced Pages. Most editors on wikipedia are either mass editors or intellectuals, Alastair is those from a rare breed who is both. His edits have a compelling effect on those editing with him. It raises the quality of edits and discussions on the pages edited by him. I have found him a team player and hence fail to understand why certain editors are after him. I am sure that L'Aquatique is a good wikipedian and a good person to work with, but as stated by John Vandenberg there is no denying the fact that she has a history with Alastair. In such cases even good admins tend to lose objectivity and do get trigger-happy. In real life we do have cases like – Judges recuseing themselves in interested cases or interested directors not voting in board resolutions. So I do support Vandenberg’s view that block should be from uninvolved admins. Secondly, the case of Alastair editing his own talk page is so trivial that I am surprised that it is even discussed. We should not be worried as how a discussion thread is going on a talk page. In most cases I see persons replying to the other talk page rather than in his own page under the question. In such cases no one worries about the “transparency” on the talk pages. Everyone should have the authority to manage his own talk page and remove any edits or warnings that he deems to be defamatory or bogus. --] (]) 06:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| I am disappointed with User Kirill and FloNights decision to support the motion to ban Alastair. While they may have some valid reasons, I feel following things need to be considered: | |||
| * Alastairs contributions here . With more than 20,000 edits, they are a veteran’s contribution befitting an administrator. As can be seen he has raised the standard of the articles that he has edited. | |||
| *Is a ban on Alastair justified? Is he a vandal, or incivil, or a spammer or indulging in harassment to anyone? Or a sock puppet? Of course not. | |||
| * The only issue it seems some people are targeting him because he is not confirming to their idea of some behavior. And these are the people with whom he had some history and hence have totally lost objectivity of the issue. These are the only people who are opposing him. As for the revert war or edit war it takes two parties to indulge in it. So Alastair cannot carry the blame single handedly. | |||
| *There is nothing wrong in saying with conviction that ones edits are impeccable. If he were arrogant, Alastair would not have apologized in one case where he playfully made some non-serious edits. | |||
| * Skywriter/Teclontz, Buster7 and Miguel.mateo are not the only so called “cheer leaders” A lot of people have shown support and appreciation for Alastair. If these can be called “Cheer leaders” then his victimization can be called “Witch-hunt” | |||
| * A one year ban is like a life-time ban……I have seen good people leaving wikipedia in such cases. Mostly vandals come back after one year bans. | |||
| *Alastair has not done something wrong…..kirill only worries that he will do something wrong in future..and hence the ban. This is like unjustified pre-emptive strike. | |||
| --] (]) 10:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| '''Comment to Ncmvocalist ''' | |||
| Its not that I have not understood the issue being discussed here. I am looking at much much ''wider'' issue here that is likely to result on account of unjustified ban on Alastair. The question is, are you willing to take a wider view of the issue or have already pre-decided on this issue?--] (]) 10:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Statement by uninvolved ] ==== | |||
| I am not directly associated with the case, however I have been involved with Alastair as he is currently copy-editing ]. I am a major contributor to the article and "maintain" it. Alastair has considerable contributions to religion-based articles like FA ] (Alastair was the FAC nominator) and Vithoba. So i am against the idea of Alastair being "topic banned from (all) religion articles for a period of time that is definitely greater than one month" and "banned from Misplaced Pages for a period of one year". I also support the view that only uninvolved admins should enforce a block. Also, about the removal on his own talk, wiki-policy allows it - ]. --] <sup> ] </sup> 14:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Statement by uninvolved ] ==== | |||
| I am not directly associated with the case, but Alastair copy-edited some of my articles (f.e. ], ], ]), and I can say one: He is very good wiki-editor. Every article copy-edited by Alastair became better. He also created a lot of important articles. He is one of the best editors, we know, and this discussion is not a good idea. ] (]) 13:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Clerk notes ==== | |||
| ==== Arbitrator views and discussion ==== | |||
| * Awaiting statements. Note that a user's "removing warnings" from a his or her own userpage is generally ''not'' blockable (or "block-extendible"), although I can imagine some situations (was this one?) where it would be inappropriate to allow removal of comments in the middle of a thread so as to deliberately make the remainder of the thread grossly misleading. On a different issue, I'd appreciate someone's making sure there are no parallels between Abtract's behavior here and his conduct discussed in the Abtract-Collectonian case. ] (]) 01:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ** The information added by John Vandenberg adds to my worry that this may be another "wikihounding" situation involving Abtract. I have not reviewed the evidence on this myself as yet. Abtract's comments on this issue would be welcome. ] (]) 03:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ** Motion proposed concerning Abtract, below. ] (]) 23:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *Comment. I'm still reviewing the comments and will vote when I'm done. Hopefully today or tomorrow. ]] 13:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| **I'm not going to change my vote now, but I'll continue to review the comments and evidence presented, and if I see something that gives me confidence that problems will not continue then I'll change my vote. ]] 16:56, 28 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Motion re Alastair Haines ==== | |||
| 1) {{userlinks|Alastair Haines}} is banned from Misplaced Pages for a period of one year. | |||
| :Support: | |||
| :# Since he the restriction placed on him, and state that he has no intention of abiding by it, I see no alternative here. ] <sup><small>(])</small></sup> 21:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :#: <s>]] 21:40, 25 November 2008 (UTC)</s> Strike vote for ban after reviewing the recent comments by Alastair Haines. Fuller comment about this situation, later. ]] 15:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Oppose: | |||
| :# The cited statement of defiance is obviously unhelpful, but it is two months old and I do not see evidence that Alastair Haines has actually violated the restriction except once, so I don't think this is necessary. ] (]) 14:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :#: Well, he's repeated it just above: "... my editing is, and always has been impeccable... the ArbCom case bearing my name, and its conclusions, are not credible evidence of anything much...". A limited restriction is hardly of use if it's both going to be ignored in practice (the lack of previous violations being an accident, in my view, rather than evidence of Alastair actually keeping the restriction in mind) and rejected in principle as an indication of an area which needs improvement. ] <sup><small>(])</small></sup> 13:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :# The fact that Alastair Haines has declared his rejection of the restriction is neither here nor there; he is not compelled to like it. What we saw on 22 November was simply a breach of the existing restriction, and I do not think a routine and singular breach of an arbitration remedy is grounds for escalating to a one year ban. ] (]) 22:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Abstain: | |||
| :# | |||
| ==== Motion re Abtract ==== | |||
| {{User|Abtract}} is directed not to interact with, or comment in any way (directly or indirectly) about, {{User|Alastair Haines}}, on any page in Misplaced Pages, or to harass Alastair Haines such as by editing (including but not limited to reverting on) pages that Alastair Haines has recently edited but Abtract has not previously edited. Should Abtract violate this restriction, he may be blocked for an appropriate period of time, up to one month, by any uninvolved administrator. Alastair Haines is urged to avoid any unnecessary interaction with Abtract. | |||
| :Support: | |||
| :# Proposed. I am concerned about the interactions described above by John Vandenberg, in light of the prior history of Abtract's harassment of another user as documented in ]. I will add that Abtract's belated admission that he deliberately sought set out to harass and annoy Collectonian and his promise to stop doing that would have been better received if they had been made before this arbitrator had to spend several hours analyzing the evidence and drafting the proposed decision in that case. Despite Alastair Haines' own issues, there is no reason to allow him to be subjected to similar misconduct. Abtract had better drop his pursuit of vendettas against other editors, whatever he thinks of them, right now if he wants to retain his editing privileges. ] (]) 23:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :# Support. The diffs collected by John Vandenberg are compelling. ] (]) 21:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :# Support. Will leave Alastair Haines fate as an editor in his own hands instead of having it unduly influenced by Abtract. This is only a stopgap measure to deal with the immediate issue. Additional wikihounding from Abtract will bring more editing restrictions or a ban. ]] 16:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Oppose: | |||
| :# | |||
| :Abstain: | |||
| :# | |||
| ---- | |||
| === Request to review ]'s ban === | |||
| *{{userlinks|Jack Merridew}} initiator:requesting review of ban () | |||
| *{{userlinks|White Cat}} wikistalked by Merridew () | |||
| *{{admin|Ryan Postlethwaite}} Misplaced Pages Administrator involved in email discussion () | |||
| *{{admin|Moreschi|Christiano Moreschi}} Misplaced Pages Administrator involved in email discussion, possible mentor () | |||
| *{{admin|Lar}} Misplaced Pages Administrator and Checkuser involved in email discussion () | |||
| *{{admin|Jayvdb|John Vandenberg}} Misplaced Pages Administrator and Wikisource Checkuser involved in email discussion () | |||
| *{{admin|Rlevse}} Misplaced Pages Administrator and Checkuser involved in email discussion () | |||
| Jack Merridew has asked the Arbitration Committee to review and lift his ban. (], ], ], ], ], ]). | |||
| :On Oct 24, 2008 Jack Merridew started a dialog with the the Arbitration Committee and some Misplaced Pages English administrators (name of email: thread Mentorship, take 2?) about returning to Misplaced Pages English with editing restrictions and a mentor. During the discussion, Merridew was counseled about the exceptions for his return, in particular the absolute requirement that he will stay completely away from White Cat. | |||
| :On October 28, 2008, White Cat was notified by email that the Arbitration Committee was reviewing Jack Merridew's ban. Since then, White Cat has given his thoughts about the potential unblock in several talk page threads, (, , and in an IRC chat (In the ArbCom list email thread, White Cat- Jack Merridew (Davenbelle) situation) | |||
| ==== Question from ] ==== | |||
| I note Condition #8, in particular "Should Jack Merridew violate the restrictions imposed upon him in this decision, he may be blocked for '''one year''' by any uninvolved administrator" (emphasis mine). Am I correct in interpreting that ''any'' deviation from the remainder of the editing condition will result in a one-year block? ] (]) 02:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC)<small> Note - refers to Condition #8 in Motion #1, as it was initially proposed by FloNight.</small> | |||
| :'''Comment for FT2''': I note that you have changed the section I quoted above; could you please include that in your comment? ] (]) 04:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Statement by ] ==== | |||
| I am concerned at the timing of the proposed return of Jack Merridew - with whom I have previously had some convivial interactions - given that White Cat is a candidate on the 2008 ArbCom elections. I would seek reassurance that the conditions of the return of Jack Merridew includes a constraint upon him not participating in the aforementioned Election in any capacity; his voting for and advocating for candidates other than White Cat possibly being construed as acting against that party. I would point out that if Jack Merridew were not permitted to regain their editing privileges then they would not be permitted to participate in the election, and that under the circumstances being prevented in doing so while editing under restrictions is not as prohibitive as might at first appear. I regard this as a necessary extension of the restriction that Jack Merridew should not interact with White Cat, as proposed by FloNight. ] (]) 03:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Statement by ] ==== | |||
| IMO, Jack Merridew has earned a "''final''" chance. It is not just the work he has done on other projects, but also the manner in which he has communicated with others about his prior behaviour. He has been open and honest, and a hard worker to boot. *fingers crossed* | |||
| It should be made clear that this is his final chance, and that he will not be enjoying the benefit of the doubt, so it is on his shoulders to ensure that there is no even the slightest appearance of relapse. It looks like FT2 is going to proposed something along these lines. | |||
| In regards to the Arbcom elections, raised by ] above, the discussion about this motion started prior to the elections, and I am pretty sure that it also predates ''any'' indication from White Cat that he was going to run. I think it is safe to say there is no possible chance that it was was a motivator in this case. It is a given that Jack Merridew would oppose White Cat if he could, and think it is sufficient "punishment" that he wont be able to that. Limiting him from participating entirely isnt something I would have even thought of, but now that you have raised it, it seems reasonable. It "cant hurt". As you say, if this motion doesnt pass, he wouldnt have been able to participate anyway, so he is no worse off if he is prohibited from participating in this years election. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></span> 03:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Statement by ] ==== | |||
| I am of course less than thrilled at the thought that Davenbelle (aka Moby Dick aka Diyarbakir aka Jack Merridew) would return editing on this site. This isn't something I have any control on, I know that. I do not have to like it but I think I can live with it. All I want to do is '''not to deal''' with any more harassment. If only arbcom can pass measures and enact mechanisms to ''insure'' that... | |||
| I will however say this. Moreschi is not an uninvolved third party on this matter. I would recommend arbcom to pick a mediator that does not have a past quarrel with me. I'd be ''extremely'' uncomfortable in asking Moreschi for help. I really do not want to be put in a situation any more uncomfortable than it already is. '''PLEASE!''' | |||
| Also in my view Jack Merridew should at least have three different mediators. If one mediator is unavailable (leaves the project, gets ill, gets hit by space debris, does a head-on with a planet and anything else equally unlikely) others would be there. This would also be in the best interest of Jack Merridew too me thinks. | |||
| --<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 06:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :To Lar, | |||
| :What do you mean I clashed with "a long list of people"? Please stop treating as if I am the disruptive party. I am sick and tired of facing accusations any time I bring up an issue concerning Davenbelle. Give me a freaking break! | |||
| :We aren't exactly in a shortage. There are plenty of editors and admins out there who have not alienated themselves from me. Unfortunately Moreschi is not such a person. I do not believe what I am requesting is unreasonable. I am not trying to win a wiki-enemy and I mean no disrespect to Moreschi. I just do not wish to see him in the helm of this very fragile issue. | |||
| :--<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 21:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Also victims do not need "parole officers". And in actual legal systems if the parole officer has a conflict of interest, he or she is of course recused. I'd have thought Moreschi would recuse himself from such a task... --<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 21:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :To FloNight: | |||
| :You were having connection problems and seems like I only got a partial post from you. We can discuss this in greater detail if you are online now. | |||
| :--<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 22:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :To arbcom: | |||
| :Can the case be called ]? Shorter the better. No real reason for this though. | |||
| :--<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 06:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Statement by ] ==== | |||
| I am in favor of this. I have seen this user in action on other wikis and I think he truly is committed to making a successful return here, and truly understands what will be required to do so. Further, as a steward, I've reviewed the unification of accounts other than Jack Merridew (which have all be explicitly directly disclosed to me although they are public record) and if there are any issues (there are some accounts that are in use by other users) I will do my best to assist in resolving them. | |||
| Finally, if the ArbCom desires that more than one mentor be appointed I am willing to so serve (this matter has come up in private communication already). However, I have confidence in Moreschi. He and I have already communicated and I have offered him whatever assistance he may choose to ask for that is in my power to give. ++]: ]/] 07:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :To Pixelface: ''Wow''. I think you might want to refactor your words just a bit. ++]: ]/] 18:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :To Tznkai: I think your analogy is a bit off... neither victims nor perpetrators get a veto over who the parole officers are, and I'm not sure it's a good precedent to establish that anyone (other than ArbCom) gets a veto over who the mentors are. Input? Sure. And ArbCom should weigh that input carefully. But in this particular case, the list of people WhiteCat has clashed with over the years is rather long. Are all of them to be disqualified? Is everyone who Jack Merridew clashed with also to be similarly disqualified? ++]: ]/] 18:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::To Tznkai: (I feel like we're having a dialog, maybe we need to thrash this out somewhere else) First, we are none of us perfect, and that includes both JM and WC. So perhaps it would be generally better if neither party had a veto over who could mentor and who could not. I'm with you in wanting to trust ArbCom to be sanguine about this matter. However, perhaps more than one mentor is a better approach here? I'm starting to really like that way of doing things. As for disenfranchising completely, that does seem a bit punitive to me, doesn't it? Either he's returned or he hasn't. ++]: ]/] 23:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Question to whoever: Where do things stand? I see the main motion has apparently passed and none of the others are close, correct? Thanks for clarification. ++]: ]/] 21:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Statement by ] ==== | |||
| I would also be happy to mediate in unbanned. I found Jack Merridew's behaviour infuriating at AfD, and I guess my views are more aligned with White Cat and other inclusionists. However, like some other deletionists, Jack has some very valid points on systemic bias and addressing it, is good with layout and has been contributing constructively on much-needed article content elsewhere. Cheers, ] (] '''·''' ]) 11:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Reply to Pixelface, KWW, White cat, A Nobody - all these editors make valid points, and if the consensus were to remain banned I would not oppose. I am merely pointing out that ''if'' Jack Merridew were unbanned, I would be happy to mentor as I have seen some good work. I concede that it is a long period of problematic behaviour, and like a Nobody, found the AfD participation troublesome and unhelpful. I think if White cat feels uncomfortable with Moreschi then a different person needs to be selected. Cheers, ] (] '''·''' ]) 11:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Statement by ] ==== | |||
| Oh dear God no. You have got to be ''fucking kidding'' me. Wow. What a horribly ''bad'' idea. I can't believe any arbitrator is even ''considering'' this. Y'know, why don't you just ''really'' shit on White Cat *and* ] and make Jack Merridew an arbitrator while you're at it? Jack Merridew would be a great arbitrator — he's obviously good at manipulating you clowns. How can you people be so fucking stupid? Y'know, that may be too salty. Can I get a mentor pretty please? This isn't just about the constant stalking. This isn't just about the constant socking. This isn't just about the constant lying about the socking. | |||
| Please, come to your senses and look at , , , and also ] (I know it may be the first time for some of you). Search for "Jack Merridew" on the E&C2 workshop page and think about what you'd be doing. Pay special attention to and keep in mind Jack Merridew's later . After I made a to add Jack Merridew as an involved party of E&C2, he responded with insults and by following me to AFDs. This isn't just about harassment of White Cat (although that ''really'' should be enough, don't you think?) This isn't just about the constant lying. If you unblock David aka D73733C8-CC80-11D0-B225-00C04FB6C2F5 aka Senang Hati aka Moby Dick aka Diyarbakir aka Davenbelle aka Note to Cool Cat aka Thomas Jerome Newton aka Jack Merridew, you might as well open ] now (and proceed to sit on your thumbs for 3 months). Now let me tell you a story. | |||
| Once upon a time, a woman named ], ]'s Minister Counsellor in ], who administered aid from Australia to Indonesia, boarded ] in ] and when it went to land on March 7, 2007 in ] ] at ], it overran the end of the runway and crashed and burst into flames and she died, along with 20 other people. Two months after the crash, David (aka D73733C8-CC80-11D0-B225-00C04FB6C2F5 aka Senang Hati aka Moby Dick aka Diyarbakir aka Davenbelle aka Note to Cool Cat aka Thomas Jerome Newton aka Jack Merridew) from ] (or a ] near Bali), who started editing October 31 2004, who has in the past repaired the roof on the ], and was perhaps momentarily bored of stalking White Cat at the time, wrote an article about her and it was ]. In anger, instead of improving the article, he then sought to delete every article related to "pop culture" he could find (although I don't really see how that fits with David's problem with ""). Congratulations David! Now when anyone wants to learn about D&D, Wikia thanks you for the page views! For his all-around assholery, David received and impersonators. I guess harassment begets harassment. | |||
| At one point, after he had gotten his lulz, Jack Merridew to being Davenbelle and he was blocked indefinitely. In March 2008, David asked that the article about Allison Sudradjat be placed in his userspace and David finally decided to improve it. Casliber placed it in the mainspace and Pegasus deleted it under ]. Casliber took it to in April 2008 and the article was re-created. Am I warm so far David? Or are you full under a bridge somewhere? After the ] and ] articles were improved, perhaps David is less bitter now and trusts in the ] on Misplaced Pages. However, why should ''anyone'' trust David after the unmitigated bullshit he has pulled? You do not trust people who have shown themselves to be untrustworthy over and over and over again. Fool Arbcom once, twice, three times...how many times does it take? Seriously? David sure isn't making the ] look any better. If I ever get in a plane crash in Indonesia and end up paralyzed, I'll be sure to go to the Senang Hati Foundation for my free wheelchair and complimentary stalker. | |||
| What are the risks of unblocking Jack Merridew? What are the benefits? Are there ''any''? How could you even consider an unblock without a topic ban in fiction? If Jack Merridew is unblocked, that is a clear message by the arbitration committee that ] means fuck all, that users can do anything they want and always be forgiven, and that ArbCom is a joke — just in time for the ]. Yeah, unblock Jack Merridew right before the elections where White Cat is running. White Cat's the pig! Run White Cat run! --] (]) 12:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Statement by ] ==== | |||
| <small> I did some minor clerking on this case before hand, but I have recused myself from further such edits, this is a personal opinion</small> | |||
| I am not familiar with the gory details of this case but I take the following two things as fact: | |||
| # Jack Merridew has harassed White cat | |||
| # White cat has in good faith stated he would not be able to turn to Moreschi for help concerning this matter. | |||
| That there has been harassment is a serious problem, and needs to be dealt with the utmost of caution. That we see the ability of any editor to reform is noble, enacting this belief with caution would be most wise. Using a mentor-cum-watch dog is sensible, but it is certainly not sensible to use a mentor that the victim of harassment doesn't trust. This would be roughly equivlent to having a stalker's parole officer be the ex-spouse of the stalkee. I make no comment here on Moreschi's actual ability or lack thereof, I am simply pointing out without White cat trusting Moreschi, this rehabilitation is too dangerous and prone to spectacular failure. Unless the mentoring position is given to (a) individual(s) White cat can trust, these motions should not pass.--] (]) 17:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :To Lar: In this case White cat is a wronged party and Jack Merridew has already breached community standards. He is essentially our equivalent of a felon, or at least an undesirable, so his concerns on who his mentor is are of very little weight compared to White cat. Do either of them get a veto? No. Is it a good idea to go against the victim's wishes? Also no. If we accept the possibility that harassment could reoccur, we accept that we need to actively monitor for it. The primary way to detect harassment is by the complaints of the victim, (even when every on wiki communication is logged, there is off wiki communication and information overload to worry about) and if White cat won't report, we've cut out the principle source of information.--] (]) 18:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :And as far as precedent goes, I think its a good precedent to show that Arbcom is attentive to all the nuances of a situation.--] (]) 18:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::FloNight, since there is a pending clarification on Everyking below that states flatly that Arbcom election voting and question are exceptions to the "No comments on" restriction, it would probably be a good idea to explicitly restrict Jack Merridew from voting or posing questions on White Cat's current and/or future elections. | |||
| ::On a related note, it may be worthwhile to deny Jack Merridew suffrage in this election entirely. The timing of this coming up shortly before an election unfortunate and the denial of suffrage is harsh, but I remind everyone that Jack Merridew was ] for harassing another user and there are few more serious breaches of community standards. It is also clear that not all of the community is willing to forgive and forget just yet. Jack Merridew quite frankly, has to earn community trust again, something that will be considerably easier for all involved after the elections are over.--] (]) 22:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::To Lar: (I think the dialogue is productive for the consumption of the public and the Arbitration Committee, but I'll be happy to also do it else where if you wish) Disenfranchising someone is very serious, and given the opportunity to decide it, I'm not sure if I would. I do think however, that the kind of harassment we're talking about here makes it an option worth considering. Suffrage is at the most basic level a way of saying someone is a fully fledged community member and conversely, being disenfranchised is a way for the community to set certain users apart. It is an ugly mark to bear, but Jack Merridew has earned it. Whether or not it is necessary, proper, or proportionate, I do not know, I will defer to those more familiar with the case than I. | |||
| :::As to the mentor issue, multiple mentors is of course the way to go, and if it is genuinely hard to find say, three upstanding community members able and willing to ride herd over Jack Merridew that White cat also is comfortable with, then sure, the Arbitration Committee should simply press forward. I do not however believe that there are significant practical problems of finding mentors who are acceptable. | |||
| :::What is left is the philosophical issue of whether or not Arbitration should allow any user to veto a mentoring structure, in substance or appearance. While the Arbitration Committee must make the best decision free of the whims of any one editor, it should likewise not make decisions simply to contradict the whims of any one editor, it would not only be counterproductive, but it would be petty as well. | |||
| :::We must finally remember that this "veto" from White cat is not a whim, demand, or opinion, but an involved editor showing us a genuine roadblock. Imagine for a moment that an outside editor, you or me, had pointed out that white cat had conflicts with Moreschi in the past, and that White cat would be unable to communicate effectively if he were harassed. The implications of the point raised are the same, and have practical consequences. Merely because it was White cat who brought it up doesnot make it any more or less true, and it is the point itself, not who brought it up, that should determine the course of action. In summary, if at all possible, lets find some more mentors that White cat is likely to trust and get this show on the road.--] (]) 02:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Statement by ] ==== | |||
| I support Jack Merridew being mentored by Casliber, but I also strongly recommend a ban from AfDs (way too much dishonest use of ] style of non-arguments) and instead advise that he focus on constructive article development for which I would be willing to colloborate. Just as I have avoided commenting in AfDs for some time now, anyone else should have no problem taking a step back as well as that was clearly one of Jack's conflict areas and for his own good, he would be wise to avoid areas where he is likely to run into conflicts. Actually, it's probably best that the more pollarizing and controversial figures step back from commenting in those discussions and focus on article development anyway as there are plenty of other non-controversial editors who can comment one way or the other. Best, --]<sup>'']''</sup> 19:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Statement by ] ==== | |||
| Clearly arbcom have not been reading their mail. No interaction or public commenting on White Cat was already explicitly agreed upon in the discussions which have been cced to arbcom-l. By all means vote on it formally, but we had already thought of this one. Otherwise, I will simply limit myself to pointing out that JM is a reasonable fellow, he can be kept away from White Cat, and that I am fully committed to doing so for his own benefit and for that of the encyclopedia. Yours, ] (]) 21:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Statement by ] ==== | |||
| This is one of the only things where I wind up aligning with Pixelface and White Cat. Jack maintained a pattern of deceptive behaviour that lasted for years. It wasn't just passive deception, either: he actively lied to all of us. We always need good editors, but there is no need to welcome back the chronically deceitful.—](]) 03:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Statement by ] ==== | |||
| He is doing good work on other Wikimedia projects? Good, he can continue to do so. But he has used all chances he deserved here, and more. I don't understand the bending over backwards to give some people an umpteenth chance. What message are we supposed to be giving here? Keep him banned from en.wikipedia ad infinitum, and don't waste anymore time on chronic trouble makers. ] (]) 09:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Statement by ] ==== | |||
| ; Statement re Jack Merridew ban review motion | |||
| It is fully my intent to comply with the terms proposed. Since I was en:blocked, I have discussed the situation with a variety of experienced editors. I have made ] much appreciated edits to projects other than en:wp; I have more edits elsewhere, than here. I have found the experience on the wider gamut of projects enlightening. I expect to keep a significant focus on the other projects. | |||
| I have no issue with FT2's amendments; it has been understood all through these discussions that further interaction is the issue here. I will leave it to others. As to the AC elections, no, my appeal is not motivated by any particular candidacy; as John says, it predates. I have no intention of making the given oppose; it would only serve to inflame. I do object to a complete disfranchisement. I've seen the current discussion re Everyking and what seems a similar situation and I do not feel that my otherwise participating in the process is inappropriate. If such an ] is passed, I will abide by it. It would, however, be a poor precedent to set. | |||
| Please noted that; | |||
| * ] | |||
| remains in effect; this has been discussed in emails and should be a part of this. | |||
| Cheers, ] 07:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ; addendum; | |||
| re: Moreschi's role: | |||
| The term 'mediator' has leaked into the discussion; Moreschi's role is as a mentor to (and monitor of) me, not as a mediator between White Cat and myself. My discussions with Moreschi about this whole situation go back to March. I don't really know just what the dynamic between Moreschi and White Cat is; sure, I have seen bits of disagreement, but nothing much, really. I see the concern about this as moot; if White Cat has a concern down the road, there are 1,600+ admins he could consult, and there's the AC itself. FWIW, when he was placed under mentorship, his mentors included Tony Sidaway who was not a disinterested party. | |||
| re: FloNight's and FT2's discussion: | |||
| This seems to me to be an internal issue about the AC's role spilling out. It is certainly true that a large volume of counsel resides in my inbox; I've read things carefully and believe that I've gotten the appropriate take-away. | |||
| re Pixelface: | |||
| Oh, dear, good show. Thank you for reminding me that ] , too. | |||
| Cheers, ] 05:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Statement by ] ==== | |||
| Browsing Misplaced Pages (still on holiday) I happened to spot this case. I've some history here, having witnessed the harassment of White Cat by Jack Merridew under his various socks for what amounts to White Cat's entire history of editing Misplaced Pages. | |||
| A last chance is deserved by someone who has come clean about matters he previously concealed, denied or equivocated about, and who wishes to do good work. But please, let it be the ''last'' chance. Merridew's persistent and malicious harassment of White Cat for more than three years shows that he has an obsessive streak, and White Cat was for too long almost alone in bearing the weight of this obsession. Let Misplaced Pages be clear: the slightest sign of a return to past form must be the end of Merridew's career. --] 01:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Statement by ] ==== | |||
| I find this action to be unfathomable and highly questionable. User:JackMerridew entered into a campaign of fraud and deception for the purposes of pushing his own point of view on various articles and to engaged in sockpuppetry of the highest order. He also, and far more disagreeable, engaged in a campaign to stalk and harass another editor. This is beyond the call of merely pushing a POV this is harassment. Had User:JackNerridew and User:WhiteCat been employees at the same company he would have been dismissed without a moment’s notice. | |||
| Everyone deserves a second chance, JackMerridew however has demonstrated that he has used all of those chances. I urge this group to keep the ban on User:JackMerridew. ] (]) 19:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Clerk notes ==== | |||
| *Minor formatting changes made to text of motion, would arbiter please review to ensure no meaning was accidentally lost, changed, or added.--] (]) 02:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *Recuse from further clerking, will be adding comment as editor.--] (]) 16:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| **Even if the motion get enough supports to pass, please do not close the motion and make it actionable until you hear from an arbitrator that more mentors have been selected. ]] 19:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Arbitrator views and discussion ==== | |||
| * After reading the suggestion for handling the case, I'm proposing a motion here (Clarifications and other requests section of the RFArb main page), and then announcing the proposed motion on AN. Since the precipitate for the last ban was socking in violation of an ArbCom sanction, ArbCom is the venue for a ban review. But in this instance, White Cat and the rest of the Community should have the opportunity to give the Committee feedback before the close of the Committee's vote. There is no need for privacy in this case and maximum transparency will serve the best interest of the Community in this situation. | |||
| *The editing restricts were written based on the comments of the above administrators and have been previewed by ArbCom. The main purpose of the mentorship is monitoring Jack Merridew's account for any editing that will bring Merridew into contact with White Cat. No topic restrictions are spelled out in the restrictions but potential topics for problem editing have been identified and will be monitored. ]] 23:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| **White Cat, I showed you the proposed motion before I posted it so that you could make suggestions. I wish that you would have let me know about your strong view about Moreschi during our chat so we could have addressed then. Adding several more mentors will be a good approach since it is something that was going to happen in an informal manner, anyway. As stated by others, this request for a ban review pre-dates White Cat's announced candidacy so I don't see that as a particular issue in this situation. Since Merridew can't make comment about White Cat, then voting would be out of the question. ]] 20:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| * <p>This is a banned user appeal where the Arbitration Committee are acting as route of last appeal. "JM" has a long and serious history of harassment, leading to a ban. The question is, can he decide to avoid White Cat now, and can conditions be crafted that ensure he is non-disruptive if given the chance. Those are fair questions; if the disruption has a fair chance of ending, then fine. If it were to be trialled and it were found that he cannot or would not, then the ban would (and should) be reinstated. Because harassment can be as simple as subtle digs, appearing on the same pages, and so on, the only condition that makes sense is complete avoidance of anything that might even slightly give that appearance - and the responsibility for ensuring that, to be ''JM's alone''.</p><p>Users are banned (by the community or Arbcom) usually for serious and persistent behavior issues. When a user has a long term ban (say 3-6 months or more), and behaves during it, then in most cases they may eventually be trialled back as part of the community. This is not a green light for disruption. '''Relapse risk must be considered, as must the higher barrier for continued trust in their reformation if there were evidence of relapse.''' Unbans in these conditions should contain some form of strong probation/mentoring if there is any risk of relapse, and a clear understanding that if the behavior resumes, then the ban may very easily be reinstated. This helps them (boundaries), their victims or users the conduct impacts on (deterrent), and the community/project (avoids issues of huge legalisms if they do begin to game or relapse). In brief, a user who is banned, is given ] trust that they will behave from now on, but is also "on ice" for a long time after, may be more at risk of resumption, and must make sure that the old behaviors are history, as the "unban" hopes that they are. If they do not, then they must expect a reblock/reban may have a '''much lower "bar"''' (and unblocking a higher "bar") than it would for a fresh user without such history.</p><p>Having discussed this internally, I am content to give JM a try at unban. However I also feel the unban conditions are grossly inadequate and do not protect White Cat from harassment, the community from resumption, or make it direct or simple enough that a relapse will mean the ban resumes. I therefore propose a further motion 2 which is in addition to motion 1, to remedy these. ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] | ])</span></sup> 03:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)</p> | |||
| ==== Motion to lift User:Jack Merridew's indefinite block and editing restrictions. ==== | |||
| 1) After reviewing User:Jack Merridew's ban at his request, the | |||
| Arbitration Committee agrees to unblock his account with the following | |||
| conditions: | |||
| *1. User:Jack Merridew agrees to edit from one account only "Jack Merridew" on all WMF wikis and unifies that account. (already done) | |||
| *2. User:Jack Merridew discloses all prior socks. (already done). | |||
| *3. User:Jack Merridew agrees to not edit using open proxies. | |||
| *4. User:Jack Merridew agrees to completely avoid White Cat on Misplaced Pages English pages. No editing the same pages, no comments about White Cat by name or innuendo. No harassment of White Cat in other venues. This restriction will be interpreted in the broadest way with no allowance for any attempt to skirt the restriction in any manner. | |||
| *5. User:Jack Merridew agrees to avoid all disruptive editing. | |||
| *6. User:Jack Merridew agrees to a one year mentorship by Moreschi who will closely monitor for any contact with White Cat. | |||
| *7. It is specifically noted that this is not a "clear your name" unblock, but rather is done on the recommendation of Misplaced Pages English administrators that are knowledgeable about Jack Merridew's past disruptive editing and now support his return based on his good editing record on other Foundation wikis where White Cat and Jack Merridew both have accounts. | |||
| *8. Should Jack Merridew violate the restrictions imposed upon him in this decision, he may be blocked for one year by any uninvolved administrator, with any blocks to be logged at ] | |||
| :''There are 12 active Arbitrators with respect to this motion, so a majority is 7 (assuming no abstentions).'' | |||
| Support: | |||
| :# After reviewing the comments of all involved users, I support lifting the ban with these strict editing restrictions. It is my sincere hope that Jack Merridew will honor his promise to stay away from White Cat and over time White Cat will be able to move past the his current understandable suspicions and worries be able to edit with less stress than he's had during the past few years. ]] 23:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :# '''If and only if''' 2 and (probably) 3 both pass. Otherwise strong oppose. We should only unban serious past harassment risks if administrator concerns about a relapse or breach of unban conditions will be taken <u>very</u> seriously. We should paint in the clearest black and white what the returning user must (not) do, to reduce the risk of ambiguity, gaming, or fault-shifting. If Jack Merridew is truly sincere, then these will present no problem to him and he will understand why they are required. ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] | ])</span></sup> 03:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :# Support. --] <small>]</small> 08:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :# Support. This is a difficult issue but I find myself on balance agreeing with John Vandenberg that Jack Merridew has done enough to warrant a final chance. The conditions imposed here are among the most onerous the committee has ever imposed. ] (]) 11:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :# ] (]) 11:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :# I find this to be an ''extremely'' difficult call. I accept the assurances of those, including my fellow arbitrators, who report that Jack Merridew has done good work on other projects. I have also carefully reviewed the e-mails that this user has sent to the committee containing seemingly sincere assurances of good conduct going forward. However, it cannot be denied that the conduct in which Jack Merridew engaged was vicious and egregious. The record reflects that this user persisted in intentionally seeking to ruin the Misplaced Pages experience of a chosen victim over a period of years, for no particular reason other than that this fellow-user seemed easy to get a rise out of, plus had different views from JM on some policy/deletion issues. To this end, Jack Merridew engaged in a persistent and varied pattern of misconduct, including but not limited to incivility, trolling, "wikihounding" (f/k/a wikistalking), serial sockpuppetry, and making intentionally false statements to the Arbitration Committee. Not only did White Cat have to expend considerable time over the years in dealing with the mess and compiling evidence, but many administrators and arbitrators did as well; and White Cat's relations with other editors were damaged as they came to Jack Merridew's defense and accused White Cat of "paranoia" and the like for making allegations that turned out to be entirely justified and true. To his credit, Jack Merridew eventually, if most belatedly, confessed to his misconduct and stepped away from Misplaced Pages. As noted, his work elsewhere has earned him a final chance to return. We can accept nothing less than the complete avoidance of any conduct that could reasonably be perceived as harassment of White Cat or any other user, now and permanently. ] (]) 02:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :# Seven restrictions plus one dealing with any possible violation of the aformentioned ones are sufficient to make sure that JM (aka Davenbelle) has no single chance to get back to old tactics. -- ] - <small>]</small> 20:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :# ] (]:]) 00:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Oppose: | |||
| :# | |||
| Abstain: | |||
| :# | |||
| 2) In the event that Jack Merridew is blocked by any administrator for a matter relating to breach of the above terms, any unblock is only to be decided by consent of this Committee, following any communal discussion in ]. | |||
| ::{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" | |||
| |- | |||
| ! style="background-color: #f2dfce;" | Rationale | |||
| |- | |||
| | Unblock "gaming", or uninformed/low-] unblocking, are unfortunately far more common these days. If a user is banned for serious harassment, unblocked on trial, and then behaves in a way that any administrator feels a reblock is necessary, then that is not a block I would condone being reversed without the committee having the opportunity to consider the behavior first, in light of what we know of the harassment case history, and any promises made. | |||
| |} | |||
| Support: | |||
| :# ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] | ])</span></sup> 03:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :# I think that the community is perfectly capable of handling the unblock requests of someone that is blocked for harassment. But at the same time, it's perfectly acceptable for us to monitor this. --] <small>]</small> 08:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :# Support; I hope this procedure never happens. ] (]) 11:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :# Support. -- ] - <small>]</small> 20:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Oppose: | |||
| :# <p>First, I don't think that special enforcement is needed in this situation. It is significant to note that no admin unblocked the Jack Merridew account despite it not having a special enforcement clause as proposed. If you look through the block log, everyday admin block accounts for harassment and personal attacks. Admins are sensitive to these issues and deal with them regularly. The indefinite block on the Jack Merridew account was done during a Community discussion so there was some ambiguity about how this unblock request should be handled. During a discussion about how to handle this unblock request several ideas were suggested with all of them being reasonable ways to address it. I decided to make it a formal ArbCom ban review instead of having one of the involved admins open an unblock discussion at AN. I did this because I think that AE is a better venue for handling any question about enforcing the sanction or re-writing them if needed.</p><p>Second, the Committee does not have a good track record for managing our cases load in a prompt manner. Until we address this problem, I'm not in favor of excluding alternative methods of handling a situation unless there is an absolute reason for doing it (such as an privacy issue or extraordinarily sensitive issues such as pedophilia related account blocks.)</p><p>Third, alternative methods of dealing with unblock requests need to be addressed in a more systematic way with the Community. An ban review committee or another alternative way to comprehensively address the growing backlog of requests. Each of these cases deserve to have the attention of experienced impartial users who can craft editing restrictions that will be enforced. This is not something that the Committee should be doing on a regular basis because it is too time consuming.</p><p>Fourth, if an individual administrator is using their tools outside of Community norms then it needs to be addressed with them in a direct way. If there is wide spread disagreement in the general Community and among admins about whether a block is appropriate, heavy handed enforcement is usually not the best approach for the Committee to use since the default should be less enforcement not more.</p><p>Fifth, more comprehensive discussions about how to handle the different types of harassment, wikihounding, and bullying need to occur in appropriate venues on site.</p><p>Last, the Committee needs to guard against putting in place provisions that might lead to more insular thinking. We need to make sure that our policies and practices do not make it more difficult for the Community to reverse a poorly written decision. ]] 16:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)</p> | |||
| :#:: Whether or not it may have been needed in past reviews of this user,<ol><li>I do not know whether it will be needed in future ones. There are strong communal concerns (see above), and when it comes to a serious harassment case I want the ability to put a foot on the brake with no risk of gaming, "unblock pile-on" or the like, if there were a potential problem, until we have reviewed the incident.</li><li>I emphatically don't accept "we're too busy" as an excuse for not giving the project an a harassed user the appropriate level of protection - if that is so then we'll just have to make time when it comes up, as we did for this appeal.</li><li>If processes change then good; this is not a "usual case", it is a serious harassment case, and needs unusual safeguards in place. </li><li> (4 onwards) The community has had consensus on poor unblocks before. Not one thing you've said explains how you will prevent gaming, politicizing or pile-ons of an unwise unblock if some admins decide to do this.</li></ol>To underline the issue, this is a user with a past history of serious harassment. We are trialling his reintroduction to the community. If he acts well (as we hope) then thsi is academic. If not, then this is very far from academic indeed, given the activity surrounding some other unblock AE cases. In brief - I disagree completely with your line of thinking. Rosy glasses and "it'll all work out anyway" are no substitute for being a bit blunt at times and allowing for the prevention of plausible unban problems. ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] | ])</span></sup> 23:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :#:::You might be making some false assumptions about how the situation will play out. There is a danger that the Community left to there own devises would have decided to keep him blocked but the Committee might vote to reverse the block. After we unblock, there may be bad will between the Committee and users that feel that their concerns were not addressed. This just as likely to happen as the reverse. This error would not happen if the Community is permitted to do the initial review. I strongly prefer to keep to our ordinary role of assisting in settling disputes when the Community can not decide and some mechanism must be used to settle the situation. It is not our place to substitute our opinion for the Community's. ]] 02:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :# I largely agree with Flo. Further, as I have elsewhere indicated, if there is a culture problem in relation to unblocking, then that ought to be dealt with directly; trying to evade it indirectly by some preemptive flanking manoeuvre is unlikely to be productive. --] (]) 11:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :# As FloNight, I don't think special cases are needed here. ] (]:]) 00:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Abstain: | |||
| :# I have no strong view one way or the other on this issue. ] (]) 02:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| 3) Condition 4 is amended to add the following explicit clarifications: | |||
| : <p>"User:Jack Merridew agrees to completely avoid White Cat on Misplaced Pages English pages. No editing the same pages, no comments about White Cat by name or innuendo. No harassment of White Cat in other venues. This restriction will be interpreted in the broadest way with no allowance for any attempt to skirt the restriction in any manner."</p><p>"In particular, if White Cat is editing a page, Jack Merridew is responsible for not editing that page, its closely related pages, or commencing editing on closely related topics elsewhere. If it is a well known page such as ANI, and both have genuinely valid reasons for editing it, Jack Merridew is responsible for ensuring he edits it only on a matter different from, and with timing or manner that has no connection to, any of White Cat's posts there."</p> | |||
| ::{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" | |||
| |- | |||
| ! style="background-color: #f2dfce;" | Rationale | |||
| |- | |||
| | Clarification, anti-ambiguity, and anti-gaming on the main condition #4. | |||
| |} | |||
| Support: | |||
| :# ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] | ])</span></sup> 03:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :# ] <small>]</small> 08:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :# ] (]) 11:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Oppose: | |||
| :#As discussed on the mailing list, the editor has been counseled about his editing restrictions in an much more extensive manner than this extra wording adds. In general extra wording on our cases leads to more confusion and adds to the potential for wiki-lawyering. ]] 16:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :#:: Again, the point slips. A concern is expressed about conditions, your response is we don't need to set conditions because the editor has been "counselled". This (off-wiki) "counselling" carries minimal weight, and be far more open to disputing or "disagreeing about what lines were drawn", than a plain and direct statement of clarification, if there were a problem. ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] | ])</span></sup> 23:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :#:::The comments by people looking at the editing restrictions prior to my posting them did not suggest that more details were needed. You were the only person out of 20+ people reading them that suggested and supported this change in wording. Traditionally Misplaced Pages has used less details in policy and sanctions because real life experience shows trying to nails down details with wordy passages causes more problems than it prevents. This point was made to you by another arbitrator to you during ArbCom's discussion of the proposal. So that was the reason that I did not change the wording that you suggested and instead suggested that you offer it as an alternative if you still thought it was needed. The role of the mentor(s) is to counsel the editor. There has been a large amount of discussion with Merridew in anticipation of this request. Past and ongoing counseling by a mentor is a necessary part of this situation. I have confidence that the mentor(s) will set good guidelines for him. ]] 02:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :# Per vote on #2 above, per Flo's comments, and per my comments elsewhere. The present wording already indicates that the restriction is to be read as broadly as possible, and that is sufficient. --] (]) 11:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :# Unnecessary. ] (]:]) 00:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Abstain: | |||
| :# Arguably redundant, arguably harmless. I have made my points to Jack Merridew above. ] (]) 02:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :# Important but it is too circumstantial. -- ] - <small>]</small> 20:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | |||
| ===Request to vacate ] case=== | |||
| ''List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:'' | |||
| * {{userlinks|Shoemaker's Holiday}} (initiator) | |||
| * Arbcom | |||
| I've also notified a couple people who were tangentally involved, they can decide if they wish to add their names. ] (]) 14:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Statement by ] ==== | |||
| A few months ago, Newyorkbrad encouraged me to open a new request related to the core of this case, but the wounds were too raw, and I was unable to set out my evidence calmly at that time, so delayed. | |||
| I ask that we reopen the matter now. | |||
| In this case, the arbcom, while I was suffering from severe depression, illness, and on the verge of nervous breakdown from the monetary situation at the time - I was literally faced with being homeless - opened a case with no prior dispute resolution - I had never had so much as an RfC on me - and chose me to be a test case. In the end, combined with the other events, this forced me to drop out of university. I left Misplaced Pages over it, and it was only the active, constant encouragement of ], ] and a few others that brought me back after several months. | |||
| A sitting arbitrator launched a campaign of harrassment throughout the case pages, unchecked by the other arbitrators. Here are some samples. This all took place over a ''single bad block'', made two months before the Arbcom case was opened. | |||
| In the initial lead in to the case, I had offered to let Charles Matthews take over the block, in e-mail, because there was no way that I could review it competently at that point in time. He said that was "not good enough", so I put it up on ANI. | |||
| Charles Matthews specifically says at one point that my refusal to simply to defer to his judgement is why he opened this case and pushed so hard for my desysopping: | |||
| : | |||
| As he did not get my consent immediately (though I did unblock in the end), Charles Matthews then launched a campaign of harassment against me, using the power of the Arbitration committee to harass without fear of rebuttal. A complete read through of the case pages would be necessary to see this in full, so I'll just give a couple typical comments by Charles. | |||
| *] 21:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)] (and that in response to an appeal by Carcharoth that he calm down!) | |||
| *] | |||
| His harassment was not devoted to me, he also referred to other editors in the same over-the top terms: | |||
| * | |||
| To quote MastCell's response to the last: | |||
| {{Cquote|[http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Matthew_Hoffman/Workshop#Charles_Matthews_has_failed_to_assume_good_faith Since this case seems to be focusing an unusually intense magnifying glass on the minor failings of everyone even peripherally involved (see Chaser above), it seems fair to note that describing an established, good-faith editor as a "meddling hypocrite, at best" is remarkably poor conduct for anyone involved in an arbitration, much less an sitting Arbitrator. Unless that makes me a meddling hypocrite as well. MastCell Talk 18:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ... and really. Describing someone as a "busybody" and a "meddling hypocrite" for voicing an opinion on a block at WP:AN/I? What sort of message are we aiming for here? MastCell Talk 18:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)] | |||
| }} | |||
| However, Charles did not act alone, he was aided and abbetted by the other arbitrators, who actively defended his right to harrass me: | |||
| * "]" - Uninvited Company, 20 December. | |||
| * "]" | |||
| Furthermore, the arbitrators were clearly not interested in anything I had to say in my defense: | |||
| The case opened on 17:40, 2 December 2007 . Within 13 hours of this, and before I had had the chance to provide a single word of evidence in my defense, Uninvited Company set out proposed decisions saying , , . | |||
| The problems with this case have been pointed out for several months, but the Arbcom have refeused to deal with it, even to simply remove the harrassing comments by Charles Matthews. | |||
| A proposal I made during the case that I be desysopped immediately, in exchange for the case stopping, because of the health and RL problems being severely aggravated by having this case going on as well, was rejected by the Arbcoim in favour of dragging it out, coninuing the case, then opening an RFC. However, in July, the personal details I had volunteered in an attempt to get them to agree to my proposal were thrown back in my face: | |||
| ''"Since the full circumstances of the de-sysopped user were disclosed to the AC in confidence, the only appropriate way for this user to regain the tools is to convince the AC – the only group of users with full knowledge of the situation – that the circumstances have changed such that we have confidence in his ability to handle adminship without problems." - Morven, on ], 23:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC), seconded by Kirill. '' | |||
| The arbcom have very consciously put me in a situation where only a full discussion of my private problems will prevent them from using them to say that the community is unable to comment on my situation, and that they should have the sole right to discuss what should be done with me. I do not trust myself to comment on their behaviour regarding that matter. Suffice to say that when I DID make a disclosure of some of the health problems of that time, e-mails I received from them afterwards criticised me for not being detailed enough, because I had still wished to maintain some sense of privacy. | |||
| Other users have agreed that there are problems with this case: | |||
| {{cquote|1= | |||
| }} | |||
| Likewise ], ], and numerous others, see the last third of the Proposed decision talk page. | |||
| I do not care about getting my adminship back, and I accept that the block was incorrect. However, for my own mental health, I want to put this behind me. Likewise, the campaign of harassment is a blight on the arbcom, and I ask the arbcom to vacate it, in full. As it stands, this case remaining is a statement that, if you upset an Arbitrator, the Arbcom reserves the right to open a "test case" against you with mno proevious dispute resolution, and allow the arbitrator to harass you off the site. | |||
| Furthermore, the Arbcom's self-regulation is clearly not working. A basic principle needs to be put in place that all Arbcom decisions can be appealed by the community. | |||
| For obvious reasons, I will be crossposting to ], as I'm afraid that for some reason, I don't really trust the arbcom to judge this case fairly. | |||
| Thank you, | |||
| ], a.k.a. Vanished user. 14:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| P.S. If the committee would like, I can send them copies of some of the e-mails I got from Charles, or provide other evidence. | |||
| '''Response to Tznkai:''' | |||
| :I am requesting the entire case be declared a miscarriage of justice, or, in less inflammatory language, a mistake. That doesn't mean the actions would necessarily be reversed, e.g. me getting sysop back, but the pages should be blanked or something, and the decisions declared no longer part of Arbcom case law. At this point, any other action validates the three-month harassment I went through as part of this case. ] (]) 14:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| '''Response to Kirril:''' | |||
| Just blank all the pages and leave a note saying it's been withdrawn. That, or something similar, would be sufficient. There's some very nasty stuff on there. I am sorry about this, and I had really hoped we could have dealt with this less publicly, but, well, now that it has been, it's hard to see any other path forwards... ] (]) 06:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| '''Response to Sam''' | |||
| In this case, the findings of an arbcom-initiated RfC ] were overturned to make a provisional desysop. I am not asking for adminship back and am fully aware that under the current RfA culture I probably never will. What I am asking is for the committee to accept that keeping up an attack piece, where a sitting arbitrator calls people "moral midgets", "dogs", and worse, and in which they harassed a user into a complete breakdown, and ''then in July unethically used confidential information about that user's health to continue their harassment'' is something they should not be doing. | |||
| What, precisely, in the current decision is so important that it must remain a year afterwards, and how does it justify the gross personal attacks, harassment, and other such things? The only thing that would change by this case being vacated, is that, if I triedd to run an RfA - which I would of course, have no chance of passing, the Arbcom, out of concern for my mental health, would not be able to villify and continue their harassment, by pretending to know anything about my current state of mental health, now that I am not facing being homeless and starving to death, because they knew what my mental health was like when both those things were true. I will urther add that the committee ignored all this information about my health during the case, but only gave any sign they had any knowledge of it at the point they used it to attack me. | |||
| The Arbcom has violated my privacy, been part of a harassment campaign against me, and, in July, insisted that I must make a public statement of my private medical details or they would continue holding power over me forever. Show some basic ethics, and stop trying to justify the harassment. The Arbcom has violated basic confidentiality by snidely revealing my health details in July in such a way to make things sound even worse, forcing me to reveal them. Please stop compounding your offenses and let's make a full break with the past, so we can all move on. The longer the Arbcom continues to defend their past bad actions, the more these actions begin to look less like mistakes, and more like intent. ] (]) 11:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :However, I am willing to have Newyorkbrad or FT2 as a mentor if that will help ease the committee's misgivings about making the basic ethical decision. | |||
| '''Second response to Sam''' | |||
| Very well, let's put it aside. You have evidently not looked at the remedies in the case, or it would have been clear that there is very, very little that would be overturned The only restriction that came out of that case was my desysop, (which would not change) and the right to regain the sysop after 6 months by appeal to the committee, with a probation to follow. FT2's commentary makes it clear that this was intended to protect me, in order to assure that I can get adminship back again. | |||
| The actual change in consequences is only to remove a proposal that was intended to make sure I could get Adminship back, which I do not want because it involves the Arbcom, and, after what has happened to me in regards to the Arbcom... Well, let's end this statement here. ] (]) 13:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| '''Per Kirril's Motion''' | |||
| :I am willing to be bound by an informal agreement that I will consult the committee, and, perhaps even seek a mentor in order to prepare myself, should I wish to seek adminship. ] (]) 21:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| '''To FT2''' | |||
| There had never been an RfC, and no real hint that I was doing anything wrong. Had either of those happened, I would probably have agreed to be much more careful. This is why Arbcom is meant to be the LAST resort in dispute resolution, not the first. | |||
| Let's review the finding of facts you mention | |||
| '''Finding of fact #3''' | |||
| justify his block of MatthewHoffman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) include claims of harassment, POV pushing, extreme rudeness, and vandalism... None of these claims are borne out by a review of Hoffman's contributions. | |||
| He was clearly a POV-pusher. No reasonable person would deny that. The issue was that there was not sufficient time given to demonstrate a problematic pattern of POV pushing | |||
| As for the rest, as described ], I missed some context that mitigated his comments, but there was, at least, rudeness and attacks on others, justified by the context of a grand battle. I looked at diffs, and failed to consider the full context, and, in the typical manner this case was handled, all these mitigating factors were thrown out, even to the point of claiming he was not a POV pusher. | |||
| '''Finding of Fact #4''' | |||
| 4) Vanished user's block of Matthew Hoffman for 72 hours, and the subsequent extension of the block to make it indefinite, were both outside blocking policy. The reasoning used to justify the blocks was fallacious, and Vanished user was involved in a content dispute with Hoffman. Further, the justification for the blocks in part is to encourage Hoffman to "cool down," which contravenes blocking policy. | |||
| ''This contains an utter untruth''': I had not edited Irreducible complexity since January, as a search of the page history will show. In order to claim I was in a content dispute with him required claiming that having ever expressed any opinion o a subject, even before you became an admin, worked out to a content dispute. Secondly, only blocks with the sole purpose to make people cool down is outside policy. ] makes this very explicit: | |||
| :''Blocks intended solely to "cool down" an angry user should not be used, as they often have the opposite effect. However, an angry user who is also being disruptive can be blocked to prevent further disruption.'' | |||
| The emphasis is in the original. Indeed, the block policy also makes a clear distinction between content disputes and conflict of interest, and, while the latter is discouraged, is not actually forbidden.: | |||
| :''Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators. Administrators should also be aware of potential conflicts of interest involving pages or subject areas with which they are involved.'' | |||
| FT2 asks for evidence that the decisions made about the Hoffman block were unreasonable. The committtee scraped the bottom of the barrel in order to justify a finding that I was in an active content dispute with Hoffman, mentioning a 7 month old edit to the page as proof. Carcharioth lays out a time scale here ], I presume that, ignoring the actual dates, this is what the Arbcom used to justify its claims of a content dispute. | |||
| In short, the heart of the Arbcom decision with regard to the Hoffman matter - which FT2 declares unassailable - is based on a claimed direct violation of policy that never happened. This was pointed out at the time, , , etc. - FloNight even responded to a seperate point in the first post. The Arbcom pressed forwards with this anyway, enshrining a lie into a decision about me. | |||
| '''Finding of Fact 9.1''' | |||
| This finding implies there's a lot more that could be found, when, in fact, it is the result of an exhaustive review of every admin action I had made, thus making it almost certainly a complete list of what could possibly be found. Every single one of my blocks was reviewed on the evidence page of the Hoffman case, and Kirril can confirm whether he analysed all page protections, but given Finding of Fact #9 taking examples from my entire time as an admin, that's probably the case. If this is, in fact, all there was - and all evidence points to that - it is a much weaker finding than is implied by its similarities to similar findings of this type. Exhaustive or reasonably exhaustive searches should really be clearly labelled as such, anything else will be read as a representative set. | |||
| Furthermore, while at least some of the decisions were mistakes, there were mitigating factors: | |||
| * Let's have a look at one of these in detail: | |||
| ''semi-protected Homeopathy a second time, citing IP "vandalism". A review of IP activity from Nov 27 - 30 2007 shows the edits related to POV differences and minor edits, not vandalism (WP:VAND refers)...'' | |||
| However, let's have a look at 25 November: | |||
| * - Vandalism by 202.168.239.186 | |||
| * Vandalism by 75.153.9.52 | |||
| * Vandalism by 90.203.64.154 | |||
| * Further vandalism by 90.203.64.154 | |||
| * Vandalism by 81.86.135.171 | |||
| All of these are oobviously and unambiguously vandalism. | |||
| There might have been an arguement that the vandalism was not recent enough to justify semi-protection, however, the finding of fact says there was ''no'' vandalism, and claims that "The effect was to exclude IP editors with whom he disagreed as well as IP editors adding valid formatting edits." - implying that was my intent, when a review that covered just a two more days would have shown multi-IP vandalism and people having difficulty getting the reversion levels correct, reverting some of the vandalism, but not all. In a poorly-monitored subject, as Homeopathy was, this is problematic. | |||
| We could review the others. These had never appeared in evidence, and, by the time they appeared on the finding page, my health had crashed so far and, the arbcom having ignored all my previous comments, it did not seem that the arbcom cared what had to be said. Clearly, some more care would have prevented an appearance of conflict of interest, however, I was literally the only admin watching many of these pages, and most administrators had been scared off of all action on those pages, due to the poor editing environments there. Conflict of interest might have been an issue, but remember that the Arbcom case was the first procedural discussion of conflict of interest related to me, had any other dispute resolution occurred, I would have very likely accepted the problem and stopped doing the behaviours in question. The arbcom stated, upon taking the case, that the lack of any prior dispute resolution related to me would be taken into consideration. | |||
| I believe all the actions are defensible - not that they were correct, but that they were understandable mistakes, given the poor guidance I had, and that, as an inexperienced admin, I was working in one of the most contentious and poorest-monitored sections of Misplaced Pages. Had the arbcom cared to ask, I would have attempted to give my reasoning. | |||
| is what the community thought about these findings in the RfC that arbcom arranged to run, then ignored. Uninvited Company - I'm going to simplify this thread a bit, but I believe my summary is accurate - later claimed that the defense of me consisted solely of Scientific-point-of-view proponents and was thus ignored in favour of unnamed and unnumbered people who e-mailed the Arbcom in order to attack me. (Who clearly lacked a point of view?) | |||
| '''On blanking''' | |||
| I was told this would be done in February. This is far too little, far too late, and does not even deal with the errors of fact in the findings of fact mentioned above. ] (]) 12:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| '''On Flonight's proposal''' | |||
| <s>This looks fine. I might prefer it a brief statement saying the new statement replaced the previous content and decisions as well, but I think that I can bend a little bit to meet the Arbcom in the middle. ] (]) 23:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)</s> | |||
| On thinking about this, the "no longer active" is so ambiguous that it could be read as meaning anything. If we're going to make a decision on this, it probably needs to be one that won't simply cause more confusion. ] (]) 00:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ====Comment by involved party Jehochman==== | |||
| This case was handled badly. I think it would be a very good to erase it completely, on grounds of procedural unfairness. As there is no request to restore adminship, I see that the only action required is for ArbCom to acknowledge this ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 14:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : Thebainer, the remedy sought is to have the case vacated. The person in question is '''not''' asking for their admin tools back. Given the severe incivility contained in that case (''moral pygmy'', ''meddling hypocrite''), and the very poor treatment by the Committee of the person making the request (RFAR with no prior DR, insufficient time allowed to present defenses), I think the request is reasonable. By failing to correct these problems when the request comes before you, you all assume responsibility for these events, even if you were not on the Committee at the time they occurred. ] <sup>]</sup> 14:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: Perhaps it would be best for the Committee to pass a motion stating: 1/ personal abuse directed at named parties is denounced, 2/ you recognize that handling of the case was poor, and the Committee will endeavor to do better. Blanking the case would also be a good idea, because it is a poor example. The result can stand because nobody is disputing the outcome. I think these actions, which might appear symbolic, would have the effect of stopping further reference to the case. I for one am very tired of hearing about it. ] <sup>]</sup> 17:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Sam Blacketer, allowing the person in question to go back to RFA is hardly a concession. Their chances of passing RFA are dim to none. If they want tools back, the easiest way is via the Committee. Perhaps the case can be replaced with a statement that the user gave up the tools under a cloud and can get them back via RFA or appeal to the Committee. ] <sup>]</sup> 14:30, 15 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ;Important note to FT2 | |||
| This case started with the posting of a remedy, before the accused had time to fully respond. Then it was suspended to run an RFC that generally opposed what the Committee was doing, ] or making one individual into an example to deter others. Then the Committee proceeded to disregard the opinions expressed in the RFC. A variety of us have asked for personal attacks within the case to be denounced or refactored. Thus far, these requests have been ignored. I am asking for two very specific things: 1/ the Committee blanks all the pages. 2/ the Committee makes a public statement recognizing the poor treatment of those involved. Public insults or abuse require a public retraction. Three wrongs don't make a right. The fact that the block was bad does not excuse Committee members to personally abuse those involved, nor does it excuse the Committee as a whole from culpability for conducting a ]. Cheers, ] <sup>]</sup> 16:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ====Comment by uninvolved party Barberio==== | |||
| The manner in which this case was accepted is at best inappropriate opening of a case without allowing it to go through normal channels of having a block overturned. At worst, it appears to be an attempt to game the system by a sitting arbitration member pushing for a speedy resolution in his favour without giving a chance for rebuttal or defence. | |||
| I'm also unsettled by the use of 'secret reasons' for the desysop and block on re-admitance. Nor does the remedy sit well with the committee's actions towards more 'establishment figure' administrators who have had similar 'isolated bad decisions'. | |||
| In my eyes, the case wasn't taken on correctly, and not enough time was given for a defence. So this case was not legitimate, and none of it's findings or remedies should be active. It should be erased and apologised for.--] (]) 15:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| =====Response to Sam Blacketer===== | |||
| With all due respect, the Arbitration process ''is'' a quasi-legal process, and claiming it isn't makes you appear to deny the reality of how your own committee works, much in the same way people claim there is no bureaucracy in Misplaced Pages. This is not unusual, quasi-legal processes exist in many associations, such as 'courts' that rule on ] motor sports rule infractions. You need to recognise that this is a quasi-legal process, and act appropriately. | |||
| So since it ''is'' a quasi-legal process, you need to make sure your actions don't prejudice someone's case, you need to be as clear and open as you can be, and you need to apply suitable fairness. | |||
| You are ''explicitly not'' the fire-fighting team tasked with making quick emergency actions. You are supposed to act deliberatively, and urgent injunctions should be ''injunctions'' not rushed ''rulings''. If you do not know the difference between an ''injunction'' and a ''ruling'' then you probably shouldn't be ruling on cases. | |||
| It is well within your power to make a temporary injunctions, and then investigate a case deliberatively. Failure to do so puts the legitimacy of the rulings at risk. --] (]) 11:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Additionally, it is my opinion that the current ArbCom claim they do not set precedent, while acting like the do. This appears to be a misunderstanding of what the word precedent means... If you have used the same 'principles' from one case, to another, to another, that is use of precedent. This is standard practice by the ArbCom. | |||
| Again, denying you use precedents when you clearly do signals a misunderstanding of your own role. | |||
| Combined with the growing attempts to create policy, and hang 'resolutions' such as ''Motion of clarification in the Tobias Conradi case'' up as binding rulings, is troubling. --] (]) 11:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ====Comment by Durova==== | |||
| This request was opened overnight without my knowledge, and I read it on my first cup of coffee. In the interests of avoiding ], I urge the Committee to consider this motion. In addition to other objections, I have reason to believe the case was initiated upon misleading representations. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 15:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :''Where a user is being disruptive...the key issue is the disruption...'' Sam, Shoemaker's Holiday was an administrator in good standing until this out of process case opened against him. He is now an administrator in good standing at Wikimedia Commons. He has been instrumental to getting Misplaced Pages's featured sound program off the ground, is doing stellar work for the new 'song of the day' main page section on Wikisource, and is in good standing in all other WMF projects where he participates. There has never been any formal dispute resolution action against him, except related to this case. Shoemaker's Holiday has contributed over five dozen featured content items across multiple projects. What more must a man do to demonstrate he is not disruptive, once a bad arbitration case labels him as such? | |||
| :The case was opened based upon a single month-old block which he had long since put up for noticeboard review, while he was offering to submit it for a second review. He answered all other relevant concerns to the satisfaction of community consensus, during the RFC for which the arbitration was suspended. Yet the arbitrators never substantially changed the proposed decision that had been posted in the first twelve hours of the case, before he had any chance to defend himself. Voting proceeded despite his requests for time to study for university final exams, and the time it took away hurt his grades. I fail to see what purpose is served by retaining this case, other than as a showcase example for critics of ArbCom to demonstrate the Committee's inability to correct its errors or rein in its members, when they level personal attacks. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 01:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Kirill, I agree that Misplaced Pages arbitration does not observe the precedents of case law. So far as I know, no prior case has been vacated because there has never been so much cause to do so as here. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 04:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Amending: Orangemarlin is a precedent, although an unusual one. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 01:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::To FT2: a single block and a short noticeboard thread is scant grounds to suppose that a 'newbie biting' culture existed. What did exist--and was well documented in case evidence--was a series of offsite campaigns by people who held a particular POV to manipulate Misplaced Pages articles toward their POV. The degree of organization varied, but they occurred across muliple fora whose participants were persistent. This created a significant dilemma for Wikipedians who contributed to the topic, since that manipulative element had already learned to exploit AGF by abandoning accounts after a few days or weeks and returning under new guises. How does one address that exploitation while maintaining a friendly welcome for genuine good faith newcomers? Shoemaker's Holiday's approach did not work, but neither did the community do well (imo) when consensus directed that indef block reviews occur on high traffic noticeboards where a percentage of threads inevitably get buried in the shuffle, and more pertinent to this review--the Committee's attempted solution wasn't any better. There has been a shortage of sysop attention for the site's touchier topics. A wise administrator who reads this case would take one very pertinent lesson from it: close CSDs, enforce 3RR violations, work on the image permissions backlogs, and don't even comment upon anything controversial. Eventually those festering messes will come to RFAR where the Committee that failed to assume good faith of site culture can cope with the result. We still need better site processes and policies, but that falls outside the Committe's remit. See ]. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 05:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Again to FT2: the case was opened under circumstances that would normally merit admin conduct RFC, and the only argument for bypassing prior DR was an allegation that a pernicious culture existed among the admin corps. That the person who initiated the request and made the allegation failed to substantiate it, and instead left a series of personal attacks on the site pages for two days before disappearing on an unannounced wikibreak, weighs heavily. Note too that the RFC for which the case was suspended established clear consensus support for the admin who was under scrutiny. He addressed the community's concerns to the community's satisfaction. The only remaining issue is his admin bit, and although the Committee's opinion is at odds with the community's he does not seek its return. The RFC was a proper RFC and will remain available for reference should that ever become necessary. The best portion of your concerns is sufficiently addressed there, and to the extent that this case is a valid one with reference to him (which I doubt) it is redundant with the RFC. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 02:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ====Comment by Martinphi==== | |||
| I seriously question whether he stayed away from Misplaced Pages for several months. My memory is that he was logging into the admin IRC network under his real name immediately after his case closed. Yes, Shoemaker appeared 18 February 2008 , while the case was closed 13 February 2008 . Yet, Shoemaker states above "I left Misplaced Pages over it, and it was only the active, constant encouragement of User:Newyorkbrad, User:Durova and a few others that brought me back after several months." Whether or not he believes this to be true, I cannot say. If he believes it, he's in no condition to be an admin again. If he doesn't, he's in no condition to be an admin again. | |||
| I have been the victim of his continued harassment since I took part in his ArbCom and RfC. If any action would give him back his admin tools, then I strenuously object, as he has continued to be an abusive editor since his desysopping. He already tried, by the regular means, to get his tools back at an RfA. He lost. He has lost the trust of the community. ——''']'''</span> ]~]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 20:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| My memory is also that while the ArbCom did not adhere to strict protocol in the case, it nevertheless went out of its way to ensure a full and just hearing of the case. It actually suspended the case pending an RfC. I have absolutely no doubt that if the ArbCom had seen anything in the RfC which indicated that Vanished user should keep his admin buttons, the ArbCom would have revised the case. Indeed, I am fully convinced that there were things which Vanished user could have done to keep his buttons: he could simply have said he was wrong and wouldn't do it again. He didn't. I told him how to keep his buttons, and he didn't do it. I believe the ArbCom was open to being convinced that their initial judgment was wrong, and the RfC failed to convince them. Certainly, Vanished user had many friends, who essentially said "he fights trolls, so excuse him." But that's not an excuse, and the ArbCom knew it. ——''']'''</span> ]~]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 21:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ====Comment by uninvolved party ]==== | |||
| I have only recently become aware of this, and fully endorse Jehochman's view: it would be very good to erase it completely. This was bad procedure and sets bad precedent. It should never have happened. ] <small>]</small> 21:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Response to Krill: I think blanked and vacated would be the best option here. ] <small>]</small> 09:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ====Response to Kirill by uninvolved Ncmvocalist==== | |||
| A case was vacated earlier this year, though I'd prefer slightly different wording. If it is to be vacated, perhaps the Committee can vote on a motion that will replace (blank) what's on the case pages: "The Committee declares that the decision viewable in the history is vacated and not in effect. The history of the case pages are preserved for transparency." The Committee may need to issue a further report, or further statements that can hopefully help heal the wounds of those involved. ] (]) 05:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Additionally, it would involve removing the case from the archives. ] (]) 09:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::(I'm still reviewing this request, but meanwhile a question.) What case was vacated earlier this year? ] (]) 13:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Brad, I think he is referring to ]. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 13:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Indeed, that's the one - granted, the circumstances were of course somewhat different in that case, I bring it up as an example of how one has been vacated in the very recent past. ] (]) 05:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ;Addendum | |||
| It is time to embrace the change in approach that the rest of Misplaced Pages (heck, the rest of the world) have been pushing for more and more recently - this will become even more evident in the next couple of elections. A case was vacated earlier this year; this is another one that needs to be vacated in the manner specified in Kirill's motion. | |||
| Tendentious editing, civil POV pushing, problem editing, or whatever else you want to call it, is by far, one of the biggest problems this project is facing. Nothing can be compared to the detrimental effects this has on Misplaced Pages, the community in general, or those individual users who unfortunately encounter this sort of behaviour regularly. | |||
| I've read through this case a couple of times in the past, as if it were any other case. When I noticed many uninvolved members of the community engaging in heated discussion about it off-wiki and criticized certain members of the Committee in an extreme manner, my curiosity was sparked to read it again. I read part of it again just now and ] got me emotionally charged. | |||
| The experience I had when handling a particular problem editor (not that long ago) was disgusting. A number of checkusers (including arb emeritus or arbitrators), as well as admins and editors should have some recollection of who I am referring to. The amount of red tape and formalities I needed to go through (and the time and effort taken) were immensely horrible. It took weeks before there was enough evidence to justify a ban on that problem editor for disruption from sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry - and even that was with some luck. It took months before I was able to demonstrate (for the purposes of red-tape and formality) that the editor had been engaging in POV pushing, extreme rudeness, harassment and general disruption. In any case, I am certain we have all learnt from it. I'm not unexperienced in identifying problem editors - particularly from the sorts of expressions they use, the way they approach a dispute, and the way they approach a dispute. And I'm pretty sure I've been AGF'ing in this regard too. That said, I have no doubt that Matthew Hoffman was one such problem editor based on his contributions. | |||
| I was lucky to get through it because of a handful of users from different categories. However, many editors, including one very recently, was not so lucky and left Misplaced Pages as a result (an arbitrator was made aware of this recently). I appreciate the help the Committee provides in trying to resolve this problem, but this case does not do that; it does the opposite. A large number of the community are afraid to take action due to what may happen to them (i.e. what happened in this case). We're willing to desysop an admin for using some clue and taking action quickly, but we're unwilling to desysop admins who take no action at all? Yes, there were errors in his admin judgement sometimes, but RFC is supposed to provide a 2nd chance. In any case, it's a moot point anyway, as adminship isn't the point of clearing the case. | |||
| The case is having a causal effect on editors leaving the project due to the lack of support for community ridding the project of problem editors as early as possible. Such an outcome is not compatible with the goals of this project, and further shakes what confidence the community has in the Committee. I request that the case is vacated in the manner specified in Kirill's well-considered motion so that we can all move on. ] (]) 12:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Again, I request that the active members of the current Committee do something - we cannot afford to put it as a last priority item or as one that can die without being enacted. Editors are having to handle this problem far too regularly. ] (]) 13:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ====Statement by Chaser==== | |||
| I was tangentially involved in this case. For the reasons stated by Durova above, I think the committee should simply blank the case, leaving Shoemaker's Holiday without his bit, but removing the restriction on how he might get it back. His not asking for it back gives ArbCom a good opportunity to correct their error without forcing them to the logical conclusion of making him an admin again. | |||
| The comments below belie how ArbCom decisions are treated in the community. ArbCom de-sysopping has been called the ] for former admins returning to RFA; this was true for Shoemaker's Holiday despite the name change. Negative FoFs in a case follow editors (particularly project-space heavy editors) around the wiki. The final decision included adding a note to Hoffman's block log that ArbCom found the blocks to be unjustified. Shoemaker's Holiday, still an active editor, deserves at least the same consideration as someone no longer contributing here. He is asking for the Committee to once again officially acknowledge a mistake, but this time its own. In practical terms, replacing the page's contents with a big notice that the case has been vacated, à la Orangemarlin, is appropriate.--] - ] 22:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| I'm not enthused about the appearance, if not the reality of rewriting history in the last sentence of 1.3. But I'm not going to look a gift horse in the mouth.--] - ] 19:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ====Comment by JoshuaZ==== | |||
| The central claim made in the decision to desysop SH was that he was involved in a content dispute with Matthew Hoffman. Given that the last time SH had edited the page in question was 7 months prior to Hoffman's block, does the ArbCom acknowledge that this claim is incorrect? ] (]) 23:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ====Statement by uninvolved Sticky Parkin==== | |||
| I have said before that having negative findings of "fact" against them is very vile for the individual, especially if it involves judgments about a person's character, dismissiveness or other obnoxiousness (not saying this is the case here, but in general.) It would be difficult to 'vacate' an entire case, but I think the person should be allowed right to reply at the bottom of the decisions page if they feel false things have been said about them, otherwise a final judgement is made against them which will stand on wikipedia for years to come. Definitely an addendum should be added by the arbs if some false things they said about someone are later seen to be false- or those comments the arbs made which are later seen to be false should be struck out. Or is there ]? Clearly not as I like to think we're all partly human, and that arbcom can sometimes admit any errors or excessive obnoxiousness. ] ] 02:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ====Statement of common ground by ]==== | |||
| It seems like significant common ground exists, though the emotions inspired by this case seem to have everyone talking past each other. I sense from the Arbs' comments that they see at least some validity in the idea that this case was poorly handled. The resistance to vacating it seems to stem from the belief that the case's ''conclusions'' were valid, even if its execution was suboptimal. | |||
| Why not just append a resolution indicating that the Arbitration Committee recognizes deficiencies in the handling of this case (ideally, the deficiencies could be enumerated; I offer a ])? That the Committee intends to ''learn'' from those deficiencies, in the interest of quality improvement, but at the same time affirms the final remedies as valid? I hear SH saying that the case was handled unfairly, and I hear FT2 saying, "Well, maybe, but the end result was valid." Folks, those are not mutually exclusive viewpoints. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 18:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *just a note of aggreement with MastCell's comment. --] (]) 17:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Clerk notes ==== | |||
| *Reformatted to include clerk and arbitrator sections.--] (]) 14:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *Question to Shoemaker's Holiday: are you requesting that the judgment be vacated?--] (]) 14:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *Moved comments, also reformatted crossposted AN thread, added links. Please see ] for additional comments as they come.--] (]) 14:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ====Arbitrator comments==== | |||
| * I'm open to doing something constructive here in principle; but I'm not quite sure precisely how that might be framed. Arbitration cases are explicitly not binding precedent (and not really even advisory precedent); so the "case law" analogy doesn't really work. We don't, therefore, have any established method for vacating a case, per se—overturning it, yes, but not vacating it. What would you like to see in practical terms? A blanking of the case pages? A motion naming the case as being "vacated"? Or something else? ] <sup><small>(])</small></sup> 01:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| * Commenting in general, I think that there is here too great an assumption that arbitration on wikipedia works in a quasi-legal fashion with notions of fairness to the parties applied as they would be in a criminal law case in an adversarial court system. That is not how it works. The concept of fairness applies primarily to the project as a whole. Where a user is being disruptive for matters outside their control, then arbitrators must still act to restrict them to prevent disruption even if doing so appears to be unfair or harsh on the user. To express it another way, the key issue is the disruption and not what lies behind it. In this immediate case the active members of the committee at the time (I was not participating, having only just been appointed) have apologised for the way the case was handled, but not for the decision. | |||
| :Where that does come in is when we assess whether to remove restrictions. If a user has been disruptive because of some definite cause, and that cause no longer applies, then we ought to remove any restrictions placed on them because they are no longer needed. In this case I see a great deal of argument about whether the original case was decided appropriately but I see precious little to inform me about what positive actions are requested, and how they would benefit Misplaced Pages. I would like to see this point argued before I go to vote. I endorse everything Kirill says above about the uselessness of 'precedent'; the committee refuses to be bound by precedent so in effect it does not exist as such. ] (]) 10:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Response to Shoemaker's Holiday: I'm afraid that yet again a request for information about how to benefit the project going forward has been met with information about how decisions in the past were wrong. The most that I think can be done is to courtesy blank the Matthew Hoffman case, and I'm willing to support that, but formally 'vacating' it would be a meaningless act. I am at a loss to know how you interpret Morven's comments as an invitation to disclose confidential information to the community: they are instead plainly a statement that any application for your resysopping should go to the committee in order to preserve confidentiality. As you are not at present applying for resysop the issue does not arise anyway. ] (]) 11:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| * What remedy do you seek? I doubt the Committee would consider revisiting the outcomes, given the facts as they existed then and now. Blanking would achieve little, given that your account was already renamed, the case of course existing under the username of the user you blocked. If people are in a mood to be revisiting things, then let's revisit the discussion of problems in our admin culture that was the substratum to the case, which has not proceeded in all this time. --] (]) 02:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| **Re Jehochman, I appreciate that what is sought is that the case be "vacated", but what is that intented to mean in substance? --] (]) 08:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| * <p>I joined Arbcom a month into the case, and so one of my first questions was to review it carefully. The case was ] to get a review of the rise in "]" culture, by reviewing the behavior of those involved in the Matthew Hoffman block and its declined unblock, and assessing if Shoemaker's Holiday had acted properly as an administrator. By itself, this was one block 2 months previous to the case. It would probably not have led to a serious result of the form Charles Matthews had requested. The case was formally ] the divisive issues and to help resolve doubts, a reasonable view. Charles' Matthews also stated that a good explanation was still outstanding despite email requests chased up on the users' talk page in November. </p><p>On that basis, I would consider the case valid. But that wasn't all. By the time I reviewed, I found that there had not been just one mildly questionable block 2 months before the case. There had been multiple clear misuses of admin access, not just one, documented – easily sufficient (in my book) to show a pattern, and easily enough for an RFAR or a request to the Committee to take action. (See for example ].) It is common for a case to be accepted, and then adjust to take account of new factors that are presented in evidence. In this case the new factors included a worrying number of "bad" blocks, not just one. The most recent had been mere ''days'' before the case opened, ie at the end of November (and before the RFAR case request was ), not 2 months previous. Any one of those blocks alone might have been enough to formally warn an administrator at RFAR.</p><p>It is obvious and clear that the case process, handling, and so on, was extremely upsetting to Shoemaker's Holiday, some of which I agree with him on, some of which I think he's leaning on too much and isn't merited. Most of the case is history, and that's good. Shoemaker's Holiday has gotten past the issues mostly and that's good. But vacating the case would be asking for agreement the case was not valid, and should never have been heard, and I can't agree on that. I can only agree it should have been heard ''better'' in terms of handling than it was - a state of affairs for which numerous statements of apology have been sought and given and I'm at a loss to see what yet another can do. The case (and its final decision) were viable; the "how it got there" which is the issue, is secondary and has been discussed at length. The notion of "I need this case vacated for my own personal peace of mind" doesn't work for me since arbitration cases exist to serve the project, and there was a clearly reasonable and well evidenced ''project'' need for it (since bad adminship is a serious concern), even if this could have been processed, documented and followed up a lot better than it was. ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] | ])</span></sup> 06:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)</p> | |||
| :: (On a side, even if one looks at the initial grounds of the case (the block of Matthew Hoffman) alone, and nothing else, not one user has shown good evidence that 1/ Matthew Hoffman's block was in fact correct, 2/ The decision that condemned that block was unreasonable, or 3/ That an administrator who makes such a block, leading to controversy between administrators, should not have their block directly reviewed at RFAR. In fact it is the norm for desysop requests to go to RFAR without "prior dispute resolution". That Charles may have spoken poorly in his comments, does not change that the case was valid and accepted. ] 06:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)) | |||
| ::: Update - I also reviewed the "remedies posted within 24 hours" claim, since it seems pivotal to the complaint. In fact one arbitrator did clearly jump the gun - Uninvited Company, who posted the proposed findings of fact and remedy on December 3rd. However if you look closely, not one other arbitrator followed suit. Principles are easy to agree (they don't change much, it's often obvious on day #1 what principles are involved, and they act as "recitals" of policy points likely to have been considered). But the next support for any finding of fact or remedy was on ''December 8'', almost a week after the case opened, and well after much of the evidence (including personal disclosures by Vanished user) had been posted and examined. | |||
| ::: I anticipate and accept though, that to Vanished user the post on Dec 3 by Uninvited Company might well have looked like a decision was already made, and may have made him feel there was no point posting a more robust response. I feel that post was exceptionally unhelpful, since there was no way at all that it could be more than a largely speculative proposal at that time, and prone to significant amendment. But this should not be read as endorsement that the case itself finally was wrong; the final finding was of misuse of admin access and when I reviewed in January on joining, and again this last week, this conclusion was very clear and exceptionally well evidenced. | |||
| ::: (As a side note, one of my first recommendations for change in January 2008, was that a proposed decision should not be posted until 7 days into the case at minimum, for most cases, exactly because of my awareness of this matter.) ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] | ])</span></sup> 16:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Motions ==== | |||
| :''There are 11 active arbitrators (excluding one recusal) on these motions, so the majority is 6.'' | |||
| 1) All pages of the ] shall be blanked and replaced with a notice that the case is vacated. This is done with the understanding that {{user|Shoemaker's Holiday}} shall consult with the Committee should he wish to become an administrator. | |||
| :Support: | |||
| :# ] <sup><small>(])</small></sup> 21:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :# After reading the discussion that are happening all over Misplaced Pages on this topic now, and remember the past discussions, I think that we need to step up and recognize that we got this wrong and fix it. We need to vacate this ruling. If needed we can write a short factual statement that explains the reason for the desysop. This is better than having a standing ruling that much of the Community thinks is dead wrong. ]] 18:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC) Second choice. ]] 20:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Oppose: | |||
| :# Would not vacate, for reasons above. Whatever the closure value of this might be, and however much upset some parts of the handling may have caused, the roots of the case itself were serious, valid, and the case appropriately brought to RFAR, when I reviewed it. Many users have objections to an RFAR case where they were parties, but vacating a case implies more than "some process lapses". It would imply the entire case had no grounds, or that a massive mistake of fact that was later recognized, means that the beliefs the decision was based upon, were grossly mistaken. Even if one looked at the initial grounds of the case request alone, and nothing else, the case was valid. ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] | ])</span></sup> 06:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :# No. I would support courtesy blanking but not 'vacating'. ] (]) 11:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :# Per FT2, Sam. ] ] 01:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :# ] (]:]) 22:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Abstain: | |||
| :# Prefer 1.3 below. ] (]) 04:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :# Although I think the conclusions reached in the case were sound, I've decided to abstain from all of these motions as I did not participate in the case. --] (]) 03:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| 1.1) All pages of the ] shall be courtesy blanked. This is done with the understanding that {{user|Shoemaker's Holiday}} shall consult with the Committee should he wish to become an administrator. | |||
| :Support: | |||
| :# Second choice, although frankly I can't fathom what the benefit of blanking but ''not'' vacating is, at this late stage. ] <sup><small>(])</small></sup> 05:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :# Support although I do not think we need a motion to do it. ] (]) 23:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :# ] (]:]) 22:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Oppose: | |||
| :# Not enough. If we need to start over and write the an accurate factual statement about why he lost the tools, then we can do it. Blanking a ruling helps, but there are real issues with the ruling that need to be addressed, I think. ]] 18:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :# Per Flo. ] ] 01:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Abstain: | |||
| :# Prefer 1.3 below. ] (]) 04:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :# Although I think the conclusions reached in the case were sound, I've decided to abstain from all of these motions as I did not participate in the case. --] (]) 03:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| 1.2) All pages of the ] shall be blanked with an edit summary saying, "The Matthew Hoffman case ruling is no longer active", and will be replaced with the statement, "After receiving feedback about the use of his administrative tools, Shoemaker's Holiday voluntarily agreed to give up his tools and in the future to consult with the Arbitration Committee should he want to have them returned." | |||
| :Support: | |||
| :# Adam and I discussed wording and he agreed to something along these lines. (Adam, I tweaked it a little but don't think I changed the meaning of our agreed wording. Let me know if you think differently.) I think that this is a fair statement about what happened. Mistakes were made by many people in this situation. It is for the best if we all put it behind us and move on. ]] 20:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC) First choice. ]] 20:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :# ] <sup><small>(])</small></sup> 01:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Oppose: | |||
| :# Oppose on grounds that "the case ruling is no longer active" is a meaningless phrase. ] (]) 23:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :# Per my opposition to 1.0. ] ] 01:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :# ] (]:]) 22:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Abstain: | |||
| :# Prefer 1.3 below. ] (]) 04:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :# Although I think the conclusions reached in the case were sound, I've decided to abstain from all of these motions as I did not participate in the case. --] (]) 03:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| 1.3) In light of all the circumstances presented, the findings and remedies contained in this committee's decision in ] are withdrawn insofar as they reflect adversely on the editor identified as "Vanished user." A notation to this effect will be made on the case pages, which have already been courtesy blanked. This action is based on the cumulative circumstances, and does not constitute a precedent for the routine withdrawal or vacating of arbitration decisions based on later disagreement with the decisions reached. The committee notes that after receiving feedback about the use of his administrator tools, Shoemaker's Holiday voluntarily agreed to give up his tools and to consult with the Arbitration Committee should he wish to become an administrator in the future. | |||
| :Support | |||
| :# After careful consideration, propose this wording as the best expression of what should reasonably be done. Uncharacteristically, I will not add further to the very substantial discussion that the case has already received. ] (]) 05:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :# This is fine too. ] <sup><small>(])</small></sup> 06:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :# I can accept this wording and hope it helps remove some of the hurt in this case. ] (]) 10:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :# Works for me. ]] 14:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :# I can accept this, though per FT2, I have concerns that this will be seen in the wrong light. ] ] 01:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Oppose | |||
| :# <p>On principle. Findings that were properly decided, and accurately represent principles, actions, incidents, decisions, and communal norms related to these, would remain valid. I'm not quite sure how one "unfinds" that admin tools were misused, for example, when the evidence even on review makes it clear to an uninvolved administrator or user that this was the case. While I am acutely aware of the hurt felt (I've been a strong supporter of Shoemaker's holiday for as long as I've known him), any party in any case may feel "hurt" -- this isn't a good enough reason for removing valid verifiable findings of a case even if the processes that case followed leave a lot to be desired. This would be the same regardless of any standing of the requesting party.</p><p>The aim in this motion is to reduce the upset felt by a user, which I support... but at the cost of "unfinding" matters that genuinely took place and that were rightly deemed improper by the Committee, undertaken by that user. Specifically, multiple other users were blocked, and multiple other users were prevented from editing by utterly wrongful protection applied by an administrator who was heavily involved in editing "against" them; some users were described on the wiki as vandals who were not. These users mattered too. The level of pragmatism required to "unfind" these points is not one I feel is good precedent, or a wise compromise. I am unable to endorse a proposed decision to do so. ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] | ])</span></sup> 15:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)</p> | |||
| :# ] (]:]) 22:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Abstain | |||
| :# Although I think the conclusions reached in the case were sound, I've decided to abstain from all of these motions as I did not participate in the case. --] (]) 03:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | |||
Latest revision as of 03:40, 31 January 2023
Wikimedia project page
ArbitrationCommittee
| Dispute resolution (Requests) |
|---|
| Tips |
| Content disputes |
| Conduct disputes |
| Misplaced Pages Arbitration |
|---|
 |
| Open proceedings |
| Active sanctions |
| Arbitration Committee |
Audit
|
| Track related changes |
A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Misplaced Pages. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the arbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.
To request enforcement of previous Arbitration decisions or discretionary sanctions, please do not open a new Arbitration case. Instead, please submit your request to /Requests/Enforcement.
This page transcludes from /Case, /Clarification and Amendment, /Motions, and /Enforcement.
Please make your request in the appropriate section:
- Request a new arbitration case
- Request clarification or amendment of an existing case
- This includes requests to lift sanctions previously imposed
- Request enforcement of a remedy in an existing case
- Arbitrator motions
- Arbitrator-initiated motions, not specific to a current open request
- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.
Open cases| Case name | Links | Evidence due | Prop. Dec. due |
|---|---|---|---|
| Palestine-Israel articles 5 | (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) | 21 Dec 2024 | 11 Jan 2025 |
No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).
Clarification and Amendment requests| Request name | Motions | Case | Posted |
|---|---|---|---|
| Amendment request: American politics 2 | none | (orig. case) | 15 January 2025 |
No arbitrator motions are currently open.
Requests for arbitration
| Shortcuts
About this page Use this section to request the committee open an arbitration case. To be accepted, an arbitration request needs 4 net votes to "accept" (or a majority). Arbitration is a last resort. WP:DR lists the other, escalating processes that should be used before arbitration. The committee will decline premature requests. Requests may be referred to as "case requests" or "RFARs"; once opened, they become "cases". Before requesting arbitration, read the arbitration guide to case requests. Then click the button below. Complete the instructions quickly; requests incomplete for over an hour may be removed. Consider preparing the request in your userspace. To request enforcement of an existing arbitration ruling, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. To clarify or change an existing arbitration ruling, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.
Guidance on participation and word limits Unlike many venues on Misplaced Pages, ArbCom imposes word limits. Please observe the below notes on complying with word limits.
General guidance
|
Requests for clarification and amendment
Use this section to request clarification or amendment of a closed Arbitration Committee case or decision.
- Requests for clarification are used to ask for further guidance or clarification about an existing completed Arbitration Committee case or decision.
- Requests for amendment are used to ask for an amendment or extension of existing sanctions (for instance, because the sanctions are ineffective, contain a loophole, or no longer cover a sufficiently wide topic); or appeal for the removal of sanctions (including bans).
Submitting a request: (you must use this format!)
- Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
- Click here to file a request for clarification of an arbitration decision or procedure.
- Click here to file a request for amendment of an arbitration decision or procedure (including an arbitration enforcement action issued by an administrator, such as a contentious topics restriction).
- Click here to file a referral from AE requesting enforcement of a decision.
- Click here to file a referral from AE appealing an arbitration enforcement action.
- Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
- If your request will affect or involve other users (including any users you have named as parties), you must notify these editors of your submission; you can use
{{subst:Arbitration CA notice|SECTIONTITLE}}to do this. - Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.
Please do not submit your request until it is ready for consideration; this is not a space for drafts, and incremental additions to a submission are disruptive.
Guidance on participation and word limits
Unlike many venues on Misplaced Pages, ArbCom imposes word limits. Please observe the below notes on complying with word limits.
- Motivation. Word limits are imposed to promote clarity and focus on the issues at hand and to ensure that arbitrators are able to fully take in submissions. Arbitrators must read a large volume of information across many matters in the course of their service on the Committee, so submissions that exceed word limits may be disregarded. For the sake of fairness and to discourage gamesmanship (i.e., to disincentivize "asking forgiveness rather than permission"), word limits are actively enforced.
- In general. Most submissions to the Arbitration Committee (including statements in arbitration case requests and ARCAs and evidence submissions in arbitration cases) are limited to 500 words, plus 50 diffs. During the evidence phase of an accepted case, named parties are granted an automatic extension to 1000 words plus 100 diffs.
- Sectioned discussion. To facilitate review by arbitrators, you should edit only in your own section. Address your submission to arbitrators, not to other participants. If you wish to rebut, clarify, or otherwise refer to another submission for the benefit of arbitrators, you may do so within your own section. (More information.)
- Requesting an extension. You may request a word limit extension in your submission itself (using the {{@ArbComClerks}} template) or by emailing clerks-l
lists.wikimedia.org. In your request, you should briefly (in 1–2 sentences) include (a) why you need additional words and (b) a broad outline of what you hope to discuss in your extended submission. The Committee endeavors to act upon extension requests promptly and aims to offer flexibility where warranted.
- Members of the Committee may also grant extensions when they ask direct questions to facilitate answers to those questions.
- Refactoring statements. You should write carefully and concisely from the start. It is impermissible to rewrite a statement to shorten it after a significant amount of time has passed or after anyone has responded to it (see Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines § Editing own comments), so it is often advisable to submit a brief initial statement to leave room to respond to other users if the need arises.
- Sign submissions. In order for arbitrators and other participants to understand the order of submissions, sign your submission and each addition (using
~~~~). - Word limit violations. Submissions that exceed the word limit will generally be "hatted" (collapsed), and arbitrators may opt not to consider them.
- Counting words. Words are counted on the rendered text (not wikitext) of the statement (i.e., the number of words that you would see by copy-pasting the page section containing your statement into a text editor or word count tool). This internal gadget may also be helpful.
- Sanctions. Please note that members and clerks of the Committee may impose appropriate sanctions when necessary to promote the effective functioning of the arbitration process.
General guidance
- Arbitrators and clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.
- Requests from blocked or banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Arbitration Committee.
- Only arbitrators and clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request or any statements or comments unless you are in either of these groups.
- Archived clarification and amendment requests are logged at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Index/Clarification and Amendment requests. Numerous legacy and current shortcuts can be used to more quickly reach this page:
- WP:ARCA
- WP:ARA
- WP:A/R/C&A
- WP:A/R/CL
- WP:A/R/A
- WP:A/R/CA
- Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and .../Amendment
| Clarification and Amendment archives | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment request: American politics 2
Initiated by Interstellarity at 22:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Clauses to which an amendment is requested
- List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
- Interstellarity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
- Information about amendment request
- Request to push the year of the contentious topic designation to be later.
Statement by Interstellarity
I would like to request that the designated year of the contentious topic designation to be pushed somewhat later. The year 1992 was decided as the best compromise at the time. I feel that enough time has passed and we can possibly push it later and get an idea of how the cutoff is working. Four years ago, we only considered election years, but I think it would be better in this discussion to consider any year, regardless of whether it was an election year or not. I would like to throw some ideas on what the new cutoff could be.
- 1. Everything 2000 and after - Most of the disruptive editing on American politics has been after Obama left office and I would strongly oppose moving the cutoff anywhere after 2017 since Trump is the incoming president and was president before. Other than the 9/11 attacks, I don't antipate much disruption during this period.
- 2. A cutoff that automatically moves every year - say we choose 20 or 25 years (2005 or 2000) as our moving cutoff, the next year it would 2001 or 2006. That's basically the gist of it.
- 3. Everything 2009 and after - Another possibility that's somewhere in the middle of the road between the broad 2000 and the restrictive 2017.
- 4. Everything 2017 and after - this is the strictest cutoff I would support especially since the incoming president was president during this period and the disruptive editing is at its highest.
I hope the arbitrators, with community input, can see the changing needs of Misplaced Pages and act accordingly to acknowledge as time passes. Interstellarity (talk) 22:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Theleekycauldron: OK, that's an interesting point. On the topic of sanctions between 1992 and 1999, I haven't checked the number of sanctions for that period, but my guess would be some low number. If the disruptive editing is very minimal during this time period, it could be covered by our normal disruptive editing policy. If there are specific topic areas of that period that deserve sanctions stronger than the disruptive editing policy, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts, but I can't think of any off the top of my head. Interstellarity (talk) 22:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Comment by GoodDay
2015, would likely be the appropriate cutoff year, if we're not going to go along with a U.S. presidential election year. Otherwise, 2016. The automatic date readjustment idea, is acceptable too. GoodDay (talk) 22:45, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Statement by Rosguill
I think periodically revisiting the cutoff date is reasonable. Looking through 2024's page protections, the overwhelming majority concern then-ongoing political events or individuals, with a handful of pages concerning events 2016-2022, and only one page about a historical event prior (9/11). User sanctions are obviously much more difficult to retroactively map onto a temporal range of history, but they're also a minority of logged AE actions for AP2. On that basis, moving the cutoff to 2016 seems reasonable. signed, Rosguill 22:50, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Statement by Izno
This is essentially ArbCom shopping: The previous amendment was barely two years ago, which moved the date from the 1930s to 1992, for which there was pretty strong evidence to show that the 60 year bump was more or less reasonable. Before that adjustment this topic had been a contentious topic for the better part of a decade by itself (with earlier designations specifically for September 11 among others). I see no reason to consider bumping this further for, say, another decade, when we might have actual evidence to indicate events in whatever period haven't remained of general contention. That this designation has been used for events that would no longer qualify in the past 2 years suggests that the designation is doing its job. Izno (talk) 21:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Statement by Kenneth Kho
The lack of editors being sanctioned for pre-2015 AMPOL suggests the extent of disruption while present does not need CTOP. The article on September 11 attacks was restricted only because "sporadic edit warring" and the consensus required restriction does not appear to generate significant talk page activity either. Kenneth Kho (talk) 23:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Statement by TarnishedPath
Per Izno, it's only a couple of years ago that the cut-off was pushed from 1930 to 1992. 1992 is just prior to the start of the Clinton term and I think that's when the conservatives really started going feral. If we moved the cut-off to after Clinton's term then we risk tendentious editors POV pushing on anything connected to Clinton. I think questions like this are probably best left until the next time there is a full case, particularly because as mentioned it was only two years ago that the cut-off was pushed forward 62 years. TarnishedPath 02:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Statement by Vanamonde
It doesn't look like any revision is going to happen here, but I want to specifically note that a rolling cutoff seems to me to be an administrative nightmare, and I would strongly advise against it. I believe the scope is fine as is - I don't see evidence of a burden to editors or administrators - but I'd much rather the scope be narrowed all at once, if at all, than gradually shifted. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.
American politics 2: Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
American politics 2: Arbitrator views and discussion
- @Interstellarity: I guess the question I would have is: of the AP2 sanctions imposed in 2023 and 2024, how many wouldn't fall under post–2000 American politics, broadly construed? If the answer to that is 0 or some very low number, then I could see narrowing the topic area. (If there's a user sanction that partially relies on edits in the 1992–1999 politics area, I would count that too.) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- The following actions were taken in 2024 under AP2 regarding pre-2015 topics:
- Cloward–Piven strategy indef pending changes
- September 11 attacks indef consensus required restriction
- The Right Brothers indef semi
- All other actions taken there are pretty clearly due to post-2015 developments, and would be acceptable with a cutoff of 2015. Inclined to support such an amendment. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Mildly curious how Cloward–Piven qualifies under the current regime... theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:52, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks, Obama. Apparently. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:26, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Mildly curious how Cloward–Piven qualifies under the current regime... theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:52, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- My initial gut feeling is that 1992 was the beginning of the end of... regular? politics in the US, so it makes sense as a starting point. If articles about that time period aren't causing a problem then I wouldn't be opposed to shifting it. I would be hesitant to go much past 2000, since I've seen that some articles from that era still being fairly contentious. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:58, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Without a very compelling reason I'd hesitate to consider making it any date after "post-2000 American politics" because articles like September 11 attacks still have recurring issues. - Aoidh (talk) 21:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Having seen the post by Izno, I must agree (though with the slight correction that it was almost exactly four years ago); a rolling begin period was not even put forward as a motion at that time, nor were later dates; what has changed so much in three years, and why is this update necessary so (relatively) soon after the last one? Primefac (talk) 17:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Motions
 | Shortcuts
This section can be used by arbitrators to propose motions not related to any existing case or request. Motions are archived at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Index/Motions. Only arbitrators may propose or vote on motions on this page. You may visit WP:ARC or WP:ARCA for potential alternatives. Make a motion (Arbitrators only) You can make comments in the sections called "community discussion" or in some cases only in your own section. Arbitrators or clerks may summarily remove or refactor any comment. |
Requests for enforcement
Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions
| Important informationShortcuts
Please use this page only to:
For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard. Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions. To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Lemabeta
| Lemabeta has acknowledged the warnings here to take more care and stay well clear of articles from which they are restricted from editing. Further violations are very likely to lead to sanctions, up to and including an indefinite block. Seraphimblade 12:44, 13 January 2025 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Lemabeta
I likely filed this improperly, but to sum it up they continue to make pages in a scope they were banned from. EF 20:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Discussion concerning LemabetaStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by LemabetaYeah, my bad. Didn't realize translation of a page of ethnographic group would count as a violation of my topic ban about "history of the Caucasus and its cultural heritage, broadly construed" I recognize my mistake. --Lemabeta (talk) 20:30, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Statement by (username)Result concerning Lemabeta
|
Boy shekhar
| Blocked by Rosguill as a regular administrative action. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:57, 12 January 2025 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Boy shekhar
Discussion concerning Boy shekharStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Boy shekharStatement by VanamondeThis user hasn't edited for 4.5 years since they were TBANned, and none of their 31 edits show any ability to follow our PAGs. At the risk of sounding harsh, an extended AE discussion is a waste of time; a passing admin should indef them (I cannot, I am INVOLVED on most of the content they have edited). Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Result concerning Boy shekhar
|
שלומית ליר
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Request concerning שלומית ליר
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Smallangryplanet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:24, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- שלומית ליר (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- WP:ARBPIA
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation of how these edits violate it
ShlomitLir (שלומית ליר) created their account back in 2014. The breakdown of their edits is as follows:
- 2014 to 2016: no edits.
- 2017 to 2019: 1 edit per year. None related to PIA.
- 2022: 7 edits. Mostly in their userspace.
- 2023: 21 edits. Again, mostly in their userspace. Made two edits in the talk page of Palestinian genocide accusation complaining about its content and calling it “blatant pro-Hamas propaganda”.
- 2024: Started editing after a 10 month break at the end of October.
- Made 51 edits in October and 81 edits in November (copyedits, adding links, minor edits).
- In December, that number rose up to almost 400, including 116 in December 6 alone and 98 in December 7. Became ECR that day.
- Immediately switched to editing in PIA, namely in the Battle of Sderot article where they changed the infobox picture with an unclear image with a dubious caption, and removed a template without providing a reason why.
- They also edited the Use of human shields by Hamas article, adding another image with a caption not supported by the source (replaced by yet another image with a contextless caption when the previous image was removed) and WP:UNDUE content in the lead.
- they also voted in the second AfD for Calls for the destruction of Israel despite never having interacted with that article or its previous AfD. They have barely surpassed 500 edits, but the gaming is obvious, highlighted by the sudden switch to editing in PIA.
More importantly, there's the issue of POV pushing. I came across this article authored by them on Ynet, once again complaining about what they perceive as an anti Israeli bias on Misplaced Pages. They have also authored a report for the World Jewish Congress covering the same topic. The report can be seen in full here. I think that someone with this clear POV agenda shouldn't be near the topic.
- If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
- Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 2023-04-05 and re-iterated on 2024-11-25 (see the system log linked to above).
- Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict on 2024-12-18 by Femke (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Adding some additional comments on 2025-01-16: On top of POV issues, the user has a number of tweets that appear to be a clear admission of gaming, implicit canvassing, creating and sharing lists of potential "most biased articles", and clearly calling for specific edits. They've also been cited as coordinating an off-wiki coordination hub for editing Misplaced Pages. If this - combined with the tweets, the forms, the op-ed and the report to the WJC, all under this user's name (that they also use to edit Misplaced Pages - this is not outing) isn't a clear cut case of canvassing, I don't know what is. Smallangryplanet (talk) 20:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
- Notification diff
Discussion concerning שלומית ליר
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
Statement by שלומית ליר
I believe contents of this filing to be in clear policy violation and have reached out to the arbitration committee for further clarification before commenting further.שלומית ליר (talk) 14:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I was given clarification from an admin regarding my concerns and will now be drafting a response. Thank you for your patience. שלומית ליר (talk) 21:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Statement by Thebiguglyalien
This is the first ARBPIA report since the proposed decision was posted at ARBPIA5 and it's specifically a matter of POV pushing, responding admins should be aware of the "AE topic bans" remedy. The committee is discussing whether to implement a remedy stating that admins at AE are "empowered and encouraged to consider a topic ban" purely for biased editing. So far, the argument against is that it's redundant because AE admins are already supposed to do this. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:39, 12 January 2025 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2024-03-29/Special_report
Statement by Selfstudier
To the extent that it is relevant, the WJC report was discussed at Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2024-03-29/Special report. Selfstudier (talk) 11:25, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Statement by starship.paint (2)
I would to like to raise this 9 December 2024 edit at Battle of Sderot, where there had been an existing unsourced paragraph (On the morning of October 7, a tour minibus...
) that שלומית ליר added a reference to (archive 1 / archive 2) from the Israeli Public Broadcasting Corporation. The reference is relevant, but I believe it may not verify every detail in the Battle of Sderot paragraph (e.g. "Netivot", "Holocaust survivors"). The reference contains a short paragraph of text and a video that is 4:21 long. I can't watch the video in the reference, but I believe it is this same YouTube video that is 4:20 long which contains the same screenshot as the reference, on the same topic. Most of the video is an interview of the daughter of a dead victim who was on the bus (the daughter had been on the phone with the victim), except for 1:58 to 2:13 which appears to be a quote from the bus driver. The publisher themselves do not have too much reporting in their own voice (on the video), yet this reference was used to cite a paragraph entirely stated in Wikivoice. No attribution was made to the relative or the bus driver, or to the publisher. I can't be totally sure though, due to unfamiliarity with Hebrew. starship.paint (talk / cont) 13:53, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Statement by xDanielx
@Arcticocean: I don't really see how NPOV can be read as requiring edits which support both sides of a controversy. Our content policies don't impose any positive duties; they only tell us what not to do. The text of the policy doesn't support the notion that a pattern of edits could be in violation, even if no particular edit is in violation.
In principle, such a pattern of edits could violate the UCoC policy, but I don't believe this board has ever enforced it. If it were to be enforced, I think it should be for more serious violations like the double standards that e.g. this attempted to demonstrate, rather than mere opinion-driven editing which applies to the vast majority of CTOP editors. — xDanielx /C\ 03:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Statement by Hemiauchenia
This user has engaged in off-wiki canvassing regarding the IP conflict. Take the following recent tweet from the 12 January permanent archive
For posterity in case it is deleted it contains the following remarks:
If you can't handle the facts, just delete them Propaganda on @Misplaced Pages includes targeting Israel, demonizing it, and erasing inconvenient truths, from falsifying war outcomes to deleting Israeli inventions and attempting to erase the reality of Palestinian suicide bombers.
Along with this is a screenshot of the current AfD Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Palestinian suicide attacks. People are of course allowed to be caustic about Misplaced Pages off-wiki, but calling out a specific AfD with highly charged rhetoric, essentially inciting canvassing seems out of line. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:05, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- For those concerned that this might be outing, שלומית ליר is very open about their real life identity on their userpage. See (archived). If you reveal your real identity on Misplaced Pages, your tweets about Misplaced Pages on your Twitter account connected to your real-life identity are fair game to mention. There's also reverse confirmation in this tweet . Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Statement by Cdjp1
As we seem to be ok to pull evidence from the statements of the editor in question, they have also commented more recently about running interference on Misplaced Pages (archive) in response to a question of if Misplaced Pages can be "saved". -- Cdjp1 (talk) 23:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Statement by Sean.hoyland
It has been several days. Perhaps שלומית ליר could clarify whether their belief about the way Misplaced Pages works turned out to be a true belief or a false belief so that this report can progress. Sean.hoyland (talk) 09:07, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Statement by (username)
Result concerning שלומית ליר
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- Users are allowed to have a POV - it's a rare user indeed who edits a contentious topic without having some strong opinions about it. For conduct to be actionable at AE it needs to be an actual policy violation. The misleading use of images doesn't rise to the level of AE action in my view, and judging whether an addition like this is UNDUE is not within AE's purview, as long as it is supported by the source. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- The PIA5 remedy hasn't passed yet, and its interpretation is as yet unclear to me: but in my view we are already empowered to deal with biased editing, in the sense of editing that violates NPOV. What I'm not willing to do is sanction on the basis of someone's opinions alone; they have to be shown to have let their opinions get in the way of following our PAGs. Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- I see some evidence - based on Arcticocean's digging below - that שלומית ליר is using images without sufficient care, but I don't see that rising to the level of a sanction. As to the rest, xDanielx is correct - nowhere do our policies require treating both sides of a conflict equally - indeed our PAGs discourage false balance. Those diffs could be actionable if they individually or collectively violate policy, but I have yet to see evidence of that. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:22, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- The off-wiki canvassing is a problem. It merits a warning at least, I don't know if the formality thereof matters. If there was evidence that שלומית ליר was aware of WP:CANVAS I would consider something more stringent. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I see some evidence - based on Arcticocean's digging below - that שלומית ליר is using images without sufficient care, but I don't see that rising to the level of a sanction. As to the rest, xDanielx is correct - nowhere do our policies require treating both sides of a conflict equally - indeed our PAGs discourage false balance. Those diffs could be actionable if they individually or collectively violate policy, but I have yet to see evidence of that. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:22, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- The PIA5 remedy hasn't passed yet, and its interpretation is as yet unclear to me: but in my view we are already empowered to deal with biased editing, in the sense of editing that violates NPOV. What I'm not willing to do is sanction on the basis of someone's opinions alone; they have to be shown to have let their opinions get in the way of following our PAGs. Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- While I understand Vanamonde93's concerns, I think that we are required to assess the totality of the user's contributions. Contentious topic editors are required to uphold NPOV. Misplaced Pages:Contentious topics#Guidance for editors places an obligation to Within contentious topics,… edit carefully and constructively… and… adhere to the purposes of Misplaced Pages. The linked page provides that Misplaced Pages is written from a neutral point of view… We strive for articles with an impartial tone that document and explain major points of view, giving due weight for their prominence. If an editor is only adding content that significantly favours one or the other side to the conflict, this is incompatible with their contentious topic obligation. That is because an editor making only one-sided edits will simply not be taking the necessary steps to ensure that the whole article is written from a neutral point of view. As their number of one-sided edits increases, the likelihood decreases that the editor is ensuring our content is neutral and impartial. Once we reach the point of being sure that they are not attempting to ensure neutrality of content, we can conclude the editor is not meeting their contentious topics obligations and we can issue a sanction. This can only be assessed with hindsight and by looking at the editor's contributions as a whole. arcticocean ■ 20:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Assessing the topic area contributions of the respondent (שלומית ליר) since they became extended-confirmed at 17:33, 8 December 2024, there is cause for concern. I counted 19 edits to the area conflict. Taken together, they significantly skew the articles negatively against the opposing side of the conflict:
- Adding a citation for a claim that Hamas terrorists shot dead a group of Israeli tourists.
- Replacing map with a photograph of victims of violence.
- Removing an outdated maintenance tag which was perhaps casting doubt on the relevant section, Massacre of pensioners, and again.
- Adding specification to claims of the use of human shield (specifying who has made the claims), therefore giving greater weight to the claims, in a context where the claims were already described at considerable length; adding another reference to that claim; and adding another.
- Adding an image contentiously captioned 'Weapons Found in a Mosque', then again Rockets hidden at a house, both to the first line of the article.
- Adding, without sufficient context, an assertion that a philosopher has determined that one side of the conflict is culpable and expanding other coverage of culpability of that side.
- On the talk pages, there has been a tinge of failure to AGF although I would be prepared to look past that (it was like meeting like). I am skipping a few further and insignificant talk page comments.
- There are then edits to LGBTQ rights in the State of Palestine: inserting a reference to execution into the first sentence of the lead; adding more references to news coverage of executions of LGBT+ people by the other side of the conflict. At Houthi movement, there is then an expansion, again of the article lead, to add references to terrorist attacks (with follow-up).
- Assessing the edits as a whole, it is difficult not to conclude that the respondent user is failing to meet their contentious topics obligation to edit neutrally in this topic area. As the number of edits is so far limited, if a sanction is imposed, it could justifiably be light-touch. arcticocean ■ 20:34, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- @XDanielx: Thanks for commenting. Most of the edits do not have a neutral, encyclopedic POV. There is an effort to influence our articles away from neutrally describing the subject without taking sides, contrary to WP:NPOV. Even if each edit in isolation is insufficient for sanctioning, taken as a whole the edits show an inability or unwillingness to edit neutrally. One non-neutral edit shouldn't be sanctioned; twenty is a different story. This is not about the percentage of biased edits but about the weight or amount of them. Therefore, the assessment wouldn't really change even had the editor made some 'neutral' edits along the way. I'm happy to concede that editors cannot be compelled to balance edits of one bias with edits of another, but I don't think that comes into it. In a nutshell, this is about Misplaced Pages:Advocacy. arcticocean ■ 08:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Assessing the topic area contributions of the respondent (שלומית ליר) since they became extended-confirmed at 17:33, 8 December 2024, there is cause for concern. I counted 19 edits to the area conflict. Taken together, they significantly skew the articles negatively against the opposing side of the conflict:
- The offwiki canvassing is a problem...שלומית ליר, you're fairly inexperienced here. Were you aware WP:canvassing is not allowed? Valereee (talk) 12:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- For transparency, שלומית ליר reached out to me, and I explained multiple policy and advised her to go ahead and respond here without waiting for individual feedback from her email to arbcom, which may or may not happen. Valereee (talk) 22:40, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- I take it that per Barkeep49's brief oversighting of potentially-sensitive content in this report (Special:Diff/1269845558), and then restoration of the same (Special:Diff/1269848988), concerns of outing have been investigated and the report can proceed on its merits? signed, Rosguill 19:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's correct. I got a request, I didn't really feel it was OUTING, but as I indicated in my edit summary OS is a tool of first resort. I consulted with the OS listserv and received some responses quickly agreeing with me and so I unsuppressed and restored the material. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Luganchanka
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Request concerning Luganchanka
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Hemiauchenia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Luganchanka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 19:55, 12 January 2025 Reversion to version of article where the article says "He is a child sex offender" in the second sentence despite consensus at BLPN discussion that this is problematic because Ritter never actually interacted with a real child.
- If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
18:28, 12 January 2025 BLP CTOP warning given
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
At BLPN, there has been consensus that the version of the article describing Ritter as a "child sex offender" in the second sentence of the article is problematic, as he did not actually have sexual contact with a child, only a police officer impersonating one. Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Scott_Ritter_Biography_-_Noncompliance_with_MOS_and_BLP_Guidelines. Luganchanka has been persistently edit warring against this apparent consensus. For which he has been warned by @NatGertler: , which he subequently blanked There has been persistent objection to descrbing Ritter as a "child sex offender" in the opening sentences of the article going back to at least August Talk:Scott_Ritter#First_sentence, but Luganchanka persistently cites a "consensus" for its inclusion that as far as I can tell does not seem to exist, with Luganchanka aggressively editing to enforce its inclusion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Luganchanka's response is disingenuous and misleading. Look at the Talk:Scott_Ritter#First_sentence discussion I linked above. Nobody other than Luganchanka thinks that Ritter should be described as a "child sex offender" in the opening sentences of the article. The dispute isn't about whether or not the convictions should be mentioned in the lead at all or not, it's specifically about the use of the phrase "child sex offender", and there is no consensus to include that as far as I can tell, despite Luganchanka's vociferous claims to the contrary. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:47, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Luganchanka
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
Statement by Luganchanka
The intro on the Scott Ritter page had remained largely the same for several months, as you will see on the talkpage it is an intro approved, and reverted to, by multiple senior editors. There has been a recent flurry of activity / edits. While I WP: assume good faith, it does look like those edits are attempting to downplay / whitewash Ritter's sexual offence conviction(s). I have not been 'aggressive' at all, rather I have simply referred contentious edits to the talkpage to build consensus, attempting to do my duty as a good Misplaced Pages editor.Luganchanka (talk) 20:40, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Please see the Talk:Scott_Ritter, where there has been a clear consensus reached, on more than one occasion, and by senior wikipedia editors, that Ritter's sexual offence conviction should be included in the lead to the article. My edits have simply been aimed at ensuring this consensus reached is maintained in the article.Luganchanka (talk) 20:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you to @Valereee and @Red-tailed hawk for your feedback. If you see the Talk:Scott_Ritter, discussions -
14 August - Vandalism by removing all reference entirely to Ritter being a "Convicted Sex Offender"
andFirst sentence
. The latter discussion ended on 26th September, and resulted in the intro we had until a flurry of edits the other day, trying to move information on Ritter's sexual offence conviction, downplay it, whitewash it etc. My edits were aimed at restoring the edit reached by consensus, which had been in place for several months until the recent raft of edits with the clear aim of moving / downplaying Ritter's sexual offence conviction.Luganchanka (talk) 06:39, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for this (nest), I really do appreciate your feedback and advice here!!Luganchanka (talk) 16:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC) (moved from admin-only section — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC))
- As per Rosguill's comments:
"Unfazed by "Emily's" age, Ritter asked "Emily," "you want to see it finish?" Ritter then turned on the webcam and ejaculated in front of the camera for "Emily." Detective Venneman then notified Ritter of his undercover status and the undercover operation and directed Ritter to call the police station."
https://casetext.com/case/ritter-v-tuttle
Luganchanka (talk) 18:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Statement by NatGertler
Editor's edits today focused on trying to main a negative descriptor of what subject believed, despite it not being in the three sources that were listed (nor in the old version they ultimately reverted to.) Efforts were first trying to simply restate the claim, then trying to source it to an opinion piece (problem) from the Washington Examiner (also a bit of a problem, per WP:RSP), then trying to state as a fact what had merely been stated in a non-prime article as an accusation. BLP concern was pointed out repeatedly via edit summary and on Talk page. Removal of unsourced contentious BLP claims and even false claims is not "whitewashing" despite how editor wishes to depict it, it is in accord with our practices. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:08, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Luganchanka
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- @Luganchanka: whether you're correct or not, you were edit warring. I believe an indef block from the article and/or a temporary site block would be an appropriate sanction here. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:54, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've blocked the user for 48h for violating 3RR based on the report at WP:AN3.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:56, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Luganchanka, edit-warring to remove negative content at a BLP is an exemption to 3RR. I see that NatGertler mentioned this in their edit summaries and at talk. As voorts points out, it doesn't matter whether you're right when you're reverting an edit that is being claimed as an exemption, even if you believe Rosguillwhiyou are "ensuring this consensus reached is maintained in the article". The solution is to go to talk, discuss, and get consensus. If you'd like to respond, ping me to your response at your talk and I'll post it here. Valereee (talk) 16:04, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Luganchanka, if you really believe those two sections -- senior editors, indeed, this one was between someone with 13 edits and somcoen who wasn't ECR, for heaven's sake -- somehow prove consensus was strong, and you think that means you can ignore all the later ones -- at one of which you didn't even respond to a ping, where people were objecting -- then this is maybe looking like a WP:CIR issue.
- But even if you had been somehow editing to support a consensus you believed was settled, you cannot edit-war contentious material into a BLP when others are objecting to it. The solution, always, is to go to talk, discuss, and reconfirm consensus. There is zero urgency to have this information in the article. Including something negative in a BLP is not something you should ever edit war over. Valereee (talk) 18:14, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Luganchanka's reading of the state of consensus on the talk page as supporting their edits is so far off base that it borders on being a CIR issue if it's sincere. Indef block from Scott Ritter seems appropriate. signed, Rosguill 22:49, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- I see RTH's point about the "First sentence" section in isolation. I'd note that the link to WP:FORUMSHOP isn't really appropriate here, as bringing the discussion to BLP/N was an appropriate action (if it was then brought to NPOVN, NORN, etc., that would be forumshopping). I'd like to see some actual contrition around the edit warring and frivolous accusations of
whitewash
before writing this off as time-served. signed, Rosguill 15:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)- That's fair; I'll strike the link. My point in including it was that, when conversations fragment, we sometimes get these sorts of chaotic incidents. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Understood, I think that meaning was clear for us here in the admin section, but I could easily see a new editor misinterpreting it unintentionally. signed, Rosguill 15:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I am not at all comforted by the fact that Luganchanka has proceeded to make Special:Diff/1269831044. The cited BBC source does not state
masturbated and ejaculated on camera
, saying onlygraphic sex act
. As written, this is essentially another BLP violation, building a case that a ban from this topic is needed. signed, Rosguill 16:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)- Having reviewed the other sources, reliable sources do confirm the masturbation claim (, ) but not ejaculation, which appears to be supported only by New York Post, a generally unreliable source. Luganchanka, in light of this clarification, can you please address your decision to include the claims as you initially wrote them? signed, Rosguill 17:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- The detail is in the record of Ritter v. Tuttle (case No. 3:15cv1235 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 14, 2018)), so it isn't completely made up. But I would also like to hear from the user on this point as to whether there was secondary sourcing here. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Seeing Special:Diff/1269853673 here and Special:Diff/1269853955, Special:Diff/1269845272 at Talk:Scott Ritter, I see no comprehension of the use of primary vs. secondary sources, nor any reflection of their past errors in engaging with this topic. I believe that a block from the page is needed to prevent further BLP violations as they have shown no understanding of the relevant policies even after being given several warnings, reminders and opportunities to revise their position. signed, Rosguill 18:47, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Luganchanka:
- WP:BLPPRIMARY calls upon users to
not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person
. There are some narrow exceptions (whenprimary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source
), but adding material to the article not found in reliable secondary sources is... suboptimal at best under our biographies of living persons policy. - — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- The detail is in the record of Ritter v. Tuttle (case No. 3:15cv1235 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 14, 2018)), so it isn't completely made up. But I would also like to hear from the user on this point as to whether there was secondary sourcing here. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Having reviewed the other sources, reliable sources do confirm the masturbation claim (, ) but not ejaculation, which appears to be supported only by New York Post, a generally unreliable source. Luganchanka, in light of this clarification, can you please address your decision to include the claims as you initially wrote them? signed, Rosguill 17:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I am not at all comforted by the fact that Luganchanka has proceeded to make Special:Diff/1269831044. The cited BBC source does not state
- Understood, I think that meaning was clear for us here in the admin section, but I could easily see a new editor misinterpreting it unintentionally. signed, Rosguill 15:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's fair; I'll strike the link. My point in including it was that, when conversations fragment, we sometimes get these sorts of chaotic incidents. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I see RTH's point about the "First sentence" section in isolation. I'd note that the link to WP:FORUMSHOP isn't really appropriate here, as bringing the discussion to BLP/N was an appropriate action (if it was then brought to NPOVN, NORN, etc., that would be forumshopping). I'd like to see some actual contrition around the edit warring and frivolous accusations of
- @Luganchanka: Would you please provide a direct link to the talk page section you are referring to when you say
there has been a clear consensus reached, on more than one occasion, and by senior wikipedia editors
regarding the lead? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)- @Luganchanka and Hemiauchenia:
- It does seem that the discussion at Talk:Scott Ritter#First sentence does indicate some support for that language i.e. (
convicted child sex offender
) in the lead, with some general lean against putting it in the first sentence. So, whileThere has been persistent objection to descrbing Ritter as a "child sex offender" in the opening sentences
is true if it means the literal first sentence, I do see a rough consensus to include the material in the lead section in some way in that discussion. - That being said, the BLPN discussion had a bit of different tone and tenor from the discussion on the talk page. There was notification about a BLPN discussion on the article's talk page, but Luganchanka, despite having been pretty vocal about this subject in the past, hadn't participated in that BLPN discussion. They instead grounded their edits in the argument that the article's talk page had consensus for the current content, and nothing on the article's talk page had changed that consensus. And that much was true. In any case, we've got
two different forums with two different answerstwo different forums with two different answers here, which appears to be what's leading to the whole kerfluffle. - Then the analysis comes to whether or not the label is a straightforward BLP violation, requiring us to read the sourcing in the article. This NY Times piece, which is cited in the body of the article (but not the lead), does state that Ritter
was convicted unlawful contact with minors and other charges
in the state of PA (the PA statute is here; "unlawful contact with minors" is the verbatim name of the crime). When dealing with a sting operation, PA treats it asan offense of the same grade and degree
as if the criminal had actually contacted a child (unless it's a lesser crime than a third-degree felony, in which case it becomes a third-degree felony). This is an extremely common practice in the United States (there are lots of philosophical questions regarding mens rea and actus reus here, but that's not really relevant here). In any case, labeling this to be a child sex offense (or, alternatively, to simply use the name of the crime in the article) does not appear to be straightforward malice/POV-pushing/libel, and a reasonably informed individual might shorten it in this way. Whether or not that is wise or optimal to shorten it is the proper subject for content discussion. - Aside from the edit warring (which was not acceptable, and was aptly handled by a block), this looks like a content dispute. A heated one involving a living person, sure, but a content dispute nonetheless. I see good-faith—albeit passionate—disagreement. If the editors were to come together and engage in one forum (such as the article's talk page, where this has been discussed a bunch), rather than splitting the discussion over multiple pages, I feel like we might have our best shot at attaining a consensus going forward.
- In short, it looks like the conversation fragmented, and consensus-building broke down. Edit warring ensued, which was bad, but we've already blocked for that in order to dissuade it going forward. A Request for Comment on the article's talk page for what the lead should look like is probably the best way to go forward here.
- — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- RTH, are you objecting to a p-block from the article? Valereee (talk) 13:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Luganchanka has been blocked for a week by User:ScottishFinnishRadish for BLP violations and personal attacks. Liz 18:38, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Just noting that this was a regular admin action and I wasn't aware this was before AE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:42, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- With this in mind, I think we should wait to hear from RTH but otherwise expect to move forward to an indef p-block on top of SFR's stopgap action, as we haven't seen anything coming close to an adequate recognition of the relevant policies and practices from Luganchanka and after several second chances and nudges, I don't see reason to expect them to change course. signed, Rosguill 18:54, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Just noting that this was a regular admin action and I wasn't aware this was before AE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:42, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
BabbleOnto
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Request concerning BabbleOnto
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- ජපස (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- BabbleOnto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/COVID-19#Contentious_topic_designation
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 11 January 2025 Sealioning
- 11 January 2025 Refusal to get the message
- 11 January 2025 Personalizing an argument.
- 11 January 2025 Railroading the discussion.
This is all after I warned them about WP:AE sanctions, and they dismissed my warning out of hand. Very nearly a WP:SPA on the subject. I see no reason to continue tolerating this kind of obstinate tendetiousness. Additional diffs available on request from admins, but looking at the user history should suffice to indicate the problem is obvious, I hope.
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
- Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 9 Dec 2024 (see the system log linked to above).
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
This is a WP:SPA with respect to the topic and their disruption surrounding it has been subject to at least one WP:FTN thread that remains active: Misplaced Pages:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Gain_of_function_research. The hope was that they would WP:DROPTHESTICK and move on from this, but it seems they either will not or cannot. jps (talk) 17:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning BabbleOnto
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
Statement by BabbleOnto
I would first like to begin by point out the person filing this complaint is involved in the content disputes at issue. They have frequently left "warnings" which read more like threats on my talk page and others' talk pages for people who disagree with them. Nor would I be the first person who would they would get banned from this topic for disagreeing with them.
To be honest I'm not entirely sure what it is I'm being charged with doing.
I think in general the user is alleging I've been uncivil, unhelpful, and, in their words, obstinate and tendentious. I know when someone disagrees with you it may feel like they're getting in your way and acting in bad-faith, but that's not always true. I've never tried to be disruptive or uncivil. I've admitted when I was wrong, I've dropped arguments that were clarified to be wrong, I've tried to find compromise, at times begging people to provide their sources and work together. And when those editors refused to, I didn't provoke any further.
I now address the specific edits in the complaint:
1. I don't see how this is sea-lioning. The user misquoted the article. I pointed out the misquotation, then addressed a accusation against me that I was second-guessing the sources (A claim which was never substantiated). I then said any source would have to support that actual claim which was in the article. I don't know what this violates.
2. I don't see how this is refusing to get the message (IDHT). The other party is making direct claims alleging I said something. I did not say it. I replied with what I actually said. What part of that interaction is saying "I didn't hear that?"
3. Admittedly probably the strongest of the four allegations. I'm not pretending I was perfect in all of my comments. I should have kept my criticism strictly to their argument. I ask you to read it in context and keep in mind you're viewing a hand-picked assortment of my worst edits, and this is the worst they could find. Also consider that conversation accused me of having a basic reading comprehension problem, perhaps you can see I lose my cool sometimes too.
4. I'm not even really sure what "railroading the discussion" means. Thus, to keep this section short and to save words, I don't know what I'm being accused of doing wrong here.
All of this has stemmed out of arguments over two sources. I have tried to find compromise, I have tried to negotiate, I have tried to build consensus. I've been going through the proper channels, I've been participating in the RfC, I've been discussing it on the ANI, I source every claim I make, for a month now I've been trying to constructively explain my side and defend my argument against challenges. It's incredibly frustrating to now be facing an Arbitration Enforcement on grounds that I'm not working with others. BabbleOnto (talk) 23:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Edited. BabbleOnto (talk) 23:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Statement by ProcrastinatingReader
I've interacted with BabbleOnto in several threads. There's a few problems, but ultimately, I think they have a certain opinion on what the article should say, and will debate endlessly to get the article changed to their position. I mean, sure, reasonable people disagree on how to interpret sources and apply policy, but I don't think BabbleOnto is actually interested in faithful application of policies to write high quality articles based on good sources.
That's not terribly problematic by itself, but most discussions with BabbleOnto are exhausting. Rather than actually trying to understand someone's argument in good faith, I think BabbleOnto replies to editors by picking out parts of an argument, interpreting it in the most disfavourable way possible, and making a superficially reasonable response ad nauseam. They reply endlessly in this manner. As well as misrepresentation of opponents' arguments, on multiple occassions BabbleOnto has either misrepresented sources or hasn't read their own sources. I can't think of a single thread where BabbleOnto didn't have the last word, or a single thread where it seemed like BabbleOnto was actually trying to understand the arguments of other editors in a charitable way. As such, I think it's very difficult to work collaborately with BabbleOnto on the lab leak theory and related articles. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Statement by Newimpartial
As the editor to whom BabbleOnto was responding in the diffs of the filing, I feel compelled to comment now that they have defended (to varying degrees) their first three diffs. I will reply as briefly as I know how to their defense of the diffs, as revised.
1. BabbleOnto is now doubling down on the claim that I misquoted the article
. I didn't "misquote" the article - I didn't quote the article, and I explained what my comment meant in the rest of the (now collapsed) thread that ends here. Also, I provided a clear explanation of why I thought they were second-guessing sources later in the thread, but BabbleOnto never responded to that explanation. They are now responding to the accusation of WP:CPUSH with pure WP:IDONTHEARTHAT.
2. On this they say, now, that The other party is making direct claims alleging I said something. I did not say it.
This is repeating a misreading they made in the original thread, where they mistook a statement I made about another editor's comment as if it were about theirs. In this "defense", I see no attempt to read thoughtfully what other editors say in reply to them and revise their understanding accordingly; all I see is zero-sum mentality and WP:IDHT.
3. BabbleOnto is now justifying an edit where they said to me, You have a habit of inserting small lies into everything you say
and You're not adding anything constructive. You're just refusing to explain anything and saying conclusory statements, or lying about what you said
- all this based on a misreading of what I had actually written - because I was going to refer to a basic failure in reading comprehension
two hours later. This seems like a time travel paradox.
4. They don't bother defending themselves on this one, but just to point out the actual issue with the diff, they doubled down on their accusations that I said a material lie
, and that I lied when said that quoted the article out of context. Pointing out being caught lying
and then proceeded to STRAWMAN the rest of my comment to which they were replying. If they had read my prior comment with a reasonable level of attention, they would have understood that there were no "lies", just a misunderstanding or two in each direction. But WP:IDHT again; even in responding to this filing BabbleOnto is still insisting I did things that I quite obviously didn't do.
It is exhausting to deal with this kind of quasi-CPUSH (not quite civil, but certainly push) behaviour. The Talk page in question has seen a recent influx of single-purpose or nearly single-purpose POV accounts, and in terms of editor energy, this one certainly seems not to be a net positive for Misplaced Pages as a project. Perhaps if they edited away from Covid and US politics, their track record might improve. Newimpartial (talk) 03:33, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Statement by Objective3000
Just a quick aside to Valereee's aside: Contentious topics are a terrible place to learn....
Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory currently has posts from 19 editors lacking the edits for extended confirmed. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:38, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Valereee, this is also a problem at other CTOPs, and is likely to become more problematic. I assume due to off-Wiki forums. ECR might just produce more users gaming EC. I thought it would be useful to put your aside into the CTOP template at the top of CTOP TPs. But that assumes folks read it. Walt Kelly said something along the lines of: “If only I could write, I’d write a letter to the mayor, if only he could read." This discussion is likely better off elsewhere. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:38, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: IntrepidContributor was just TBanned from the topic of COVID-19 and indef blocked until the accusations of off-wiki coordination made by them at ANI are retracted. Those accusations are like their suggestion made in their statement in this filing. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Statement by JoelleJay
At the very least, can we get more admin involvement on the lab leak page so trolling like this doesn't disrupt things even more? JoelleJay (talk) 07:12, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Statement by IntrepidContributor
I have been observing BabbleOnto and while there are valid concerns about bludgeoning, I think the proposed sanctions are too much. His engagement in the Covid lab leak topic is driven by commitment to WP:NPOV, which our articles fail to adhere to, and he made the mistake of arguing with editors who were never going to listen (resulting in what looks like sealioning on his part). He's not only editor to raise issues in the topic and engage in good faith discussion, only to find themselves pulled to AN or AE disputes after staying out of the seasoning traps and refusing to capitulate to threats. In a parallel AN case concerning another editor in same topic, I suggest there may be possible off-wiki coordination , but it can also be on-wiki ().
One need only cross-reference names from Feb 2021 RfC, checking those that voted for labeling COVID-19 lab leak as conspiracy, with the names of complainants here. Contrast all these old timers with the steady stream of tens if not hundreds of regular editors complaining that our article fails NPOV, and see that their gentle approach doesn't work . Our chief complainant is already preparing his next case , and this might not be his first.
I suggest that administrators consider a 1 to 2 month topic ban for BabbleOnto to provide opportunity for him to correct his approach, while staying alert to the tactics of POV editors trying to draw them into content debates to influence outcomes.
IntrepidContributor (talk) 14:46, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Statement by TarnishedPath
Please see this edit where BabbleOnto edited Gain of function research restoring previously reverted content and WP:POVPUSH using a shit source after they'd been told by multiple other editors in discussions here and here that the source was shit. Notably in the edit summary they wrote "Read discussion page. Manual revert. No serious challenge has been made to these changes. Methinks an admin needs to get involved...
" despite them being in a WP:1AM situation. If a clue is not gotten by the editor fast I'd suggest TBANs from both COVID and AP2 is warranted in order to cease their disruption. TarnishedPath 04:25, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Noting the editor's continued behaviour at Talk:Gain-of-function research. Refer to Special:Diff/1270316266. TarnishedPath 01:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Statement by berchanhimez
This user was given no less than 4 chances on the talk page to stop talking about bans/other editors and start talking about the content. They have continued crying about how they're scared of getting banned... yet they continue blabbing about other editors getting banned for their bad behavior rather than refocusing on the content as requested. At a minimum a partial block from the talk page(s) in question is warranted, and it would be beneficial for a topic ban from the origins of COVID-19, broadly construed. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:37, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Result concerning BabbleOnto
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- BabbleOnto, please edit your statement down further to fit within the restriction. This also serves as an opportunity to rephrase your defense, which currently is not convincing at first glance. ProcrastinatingReader's description of the situation seems quite apt, particularly
BabbleOnto replies to editors by picking out parts of an argument, interpreting it in the most disfavourable way possible
, which is currently a pretty fitting description of your response to them here, given that you zeroed in on the "superficially reasonable" part and ignored the much more serious parts of the testimony. signed, Rosguill 23:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)- Ok, having read through nearly every edit that BabbleOnto has made, I agree with the complainants that not only does BabbleOnto engage in sealioning, it appears to be almost exclusively what they do. The discussion at Talk:Brian Thompson (businessman)/Archive 2 exhibits perhaps even more concerning argumentation than the diffs provided in the initial report. Throughout these discussions, BabbleOnto tends to demand a standard of stating the obvious (with respect to the context of said sources) that is absurd, and continues to lawyer for such standards even when the situation becomes WP:1AM. When criticizing sources' ability to account for basic claims, I can find no examples of BabbleOnto themselves attempting to find sources that would resolve the issues they identify--this is uncollaborative behavior. There is a clear pattern of engaging in this behavior across recent US politics topics consistent with the scope of Misplaced Pages:Contentious topics/American politics. The only saving grace to BabbleOnto's track record is that none of this has translated into disruptive editing of actual articles, just unproductive engagement on talk pages. I am currently in favor of a topic ban from post-1992 American politics; if they are actually here to build an encyclopedia and not to provide a punching bag for debate club, they can use this opportunity to learn more constructive patterns of editing in topics that they are less personally invested in. signed, Rosguill 01:26, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Valereee in line with their follow-up response, I take Objective3000's comments as potentially a basis for community discussion rather than a call for protective action on the lab leak talk page right now. signed, Rosguill 21:47, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ok, having read through nearly every edit that BabbleOnto has made, I agree with the complainants that not only does BabbleOnto engage in sealioning, it appears to be almost exclusively what they do. The discussion at Talk:Brian Thompson (businessman)/Archive 2 exhibits perhaps even more concerning argumentation than the diffs provided in the initial report. Throughout these discussions, BabbleOnto tends to demand a standard of stating the obvious (with respect to the context of said sources) that is absurd, and continues to lawyer for such standards even when the situation becomes WP:1AM. When criticizing sources' ability to account for basic claims, I can find no examples of BabbleOnto themselves attempting to find sources that would resolve the issues they identify--this is uncollaborative behavior. There is a clear pattern of engaging in this behavior across recent US politics topics consistent with the scope of Misplaced Pages:Contentious topics/American politics. The only saving grace to BabbleOnto's track record is that none of this has translated into disruptive editing of actual articles, just unproductive engagement on talk pages. I am currently in favor of a topic ban from post-1992 American politics; if they are actually here to build an encyclopedia and not to provide a punching bag for debate club, they can use this opportunity to learn more constructive patterns of editing in topics that they are less personally invested in. signed, Rosguill 01:26, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have to agree, this looks like sealioning. BabbleOnto, you're new here, and I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt about your ability to learn to collaborate. WP works on collaboration and consensus, and sometimes consensus goes your way, sometimes it doesn't. You have to be willing to shrug, walk away, and go work on something else when consensus is against you. And you absolutely must not insist everyone else keep answering you until you're satisfied with their answers. I've seen editors at both the Thompson and the lab leak talks tell you they don't actually owe you an answer to your satisfaction.
- Do you think you can learn to do that? Because if you don't think you can, this may not be the right hobby for you.
- As an aside, I'm going to recommend what I always recommend to new editors who end up here: Contentious topics are a terrible place to learn. Go edit in noncontentious topics, where other editors are a lot less exhausted and have the energy to be more patient with new editors. Valereee (talk) 18:27, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Objective3000, hm, yes, and Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory also has 37 archives, and even with archiving at 21 days, 20 sections. Do you think an ECR is something that talk page needs? That's not part of the authorized restrictions an individual admin can place...hm, and I'm not sure of the policy w/re most efficiently getting that done and wasting the fewest people's time. @Rosguill? Valereee (talk) 21:08, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- I would object to ECPing the talk page. COVID-19 isn't subject to ARBECR generally, though this specific article is protected. The purpose of protecting the page (in this case) is to push newer users to the talk page, where they can discuss changes they want made (such as by edit requests) and contribute towards consensus-building while not edit warring. Protecting talk pages is truly, truly a last resort. Ordinary good faith people would be entirely shut out and silenced—we'd not even get edit requests—and I frankly don't see anything near the level of disruption/LTA abuse that would justify jumping straight to WP:ECP. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:55, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Red-tailed hawk, not ECP. ECR: non-EC are restricted from anything but making edit requests. Valereee (talk) 14:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- I see. In any case, ECR is the sort of remedy that should be reserved for more or less when all else fails—it’s still super restrictive. If new users/inexperienced users are trying to contribute towards consensus-building on the talk page (or even if they’re doing ordinary confused new editor things), and aren’t edit warring, I don’t think we’d actually be preventing disruptive edits by enforcing ECR.
- Suppose someone in good-faith sees “anyone can edit”, and they want to edit something topical. But then they see that the page that they want to edit is protected. They read the explanation that appears after clicking the “view source” tab. They then read that they can discuss this page with others, click on the first blue link, and then make a section using the “add topic” button in order to start a discussion.
- “OK”, the newbie thinks, “maybe I will find someone else who agrees with me, or I’ll at least get some answer as to why the article is this way”. They leave their computer and come back in an hour. They then discover that their question has been removed by some random editor with edit summary “WP:ARBECR violation, user not WP:XC; malformed edit request” and find a contentious topics notice on their own user talk page, all because they don’t make a properly formatted edit request (i.e. “please change X to Y”). Or maybe they wont navigate the talk page history and they’ll angrily post that their earlier comment was deleted. Or maybe they just won’t come back. To top it off, nothing at any point in this process was obvious to them that such a requirement existed—there is no edit notice that says so, and so they couldn’t know.
- WP:ECR is WP:BITEy. It dissuades new voices from joining conversations, and it makes it somewhat hostile to true newbies. In particular, it dissuades people who, for example:
- Are Not hardcore/insane enough to deal with intense wiki-bureaucracy;
- Are unable to cope with handling unfamiliar wikitext markup when making edit requests for anything that is not a trivial word change, or who have abstract changes in mind more than concrete ones;
- Do not want to spend an hour of their time to figure out how to say the magic words to summon another editor to fix a typo.
- The chief way that ECR works is by making LTAs/sockmasters have to put on a lot of effort or make a lot of edits. This raises the (time) cost of socking, and it has the benefit of possibly exposing tells along the way. But that also means that we’re imposing the same thing on good-faith newbies.
- When deciding whether or not to impose ECR, we have to balance that it is extremely BITEy to good-faith newbies against its ability to prevent disruption. There are times where we are basically left to throw our hands up because of LTA/sockmaster abuse, and conclude that the tradeoff is worth it; the ArbCom has done this for certain contentious topics. But, the ArbCom had the wisdom to not enable ECR as a page sanction across all contentious topic areas—there is a very real tradeoff that needs to be really carefully considered. And I don’t the tradeoff leans towards embracing ECR here. — Red-tailed sock (Red-tailed hawk's nest) 15:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm don't think we need to have this discussion here and now, but I don't disagree it's bitey and needs to be used only where necessary. I was just asking the question of someone who is working at that article: is this an article talk where it's necessary? Valereee (talk) 17:45, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Red-tailed hawk, not ECP. ECR: non-EC are restricted from anything but making edit requests. Valereee (talk) 14:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- I would object to ECPing the talk page. COVID-19 isn't subject to ARBECR generally, though this specific article is protected. The purpose of protecting the page (in this case) is to push newer users to the talk page, where they can discuss changes they want made (such as by edit requests) and contribute towards consensus-building while not edit warring. Protecting talk pages is truly, truly a last resort. Ordinary good faith people would be entirely shut out and silenced—we'd not even get edit requests—and I frankly don't see anything near the level of disruption/LTA abuse that would justify jumping straight to WP:ECP. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:55, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Objective3000, hm, yes, and Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory also has 37 archives, and even with archiving at 21 days, 20 sections. Do you think an ECR is something that talk page needs? That's not part of the authorized restrictions an individual admin can place...hm, and I'm not sure of the policy w/re most efficiently getting that done and wasting the fewest people's time. @Rosguill? Valereee (talk) 21:08, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Marlarkey
| Marlarkey p-blocked from Declaration of war and formally warned to be more mindful of policies, guidelines and best practices when editing CTOPs, particularly PIA signed, Rosguill 19:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Marlarkey
User has been on Misplaced Pages (on and off) since at least January 2010. It seems there is a WP:CIR-related issue on ArbCom PIA/Contentious topics, given the very clear lack of ignorance of the ArbCom Notification and subsequent edit summary arguments. I do not necessarily believe a block will be of use in this case, due to this editor's on-and-off Misplaced Pages editing status (less than 500 edits since January 2010). Either a topic ban and/or a 1,000 EC status requirement (i.e. EC-status requirement is something higher than 500 edits) is being requested. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Discussion concerning MarlarkeyStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by MarlarkeyWeatherWriter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is repeatedly reverting edits which are removing information outside the scope of the page in question. My edits are validly citated within the scope of the page. WeatherWriter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has cited WP:ARBPIA but that is not relevant to THIS article which is not a Palestine-Israel article. This article is not a contentious topic - it is factual. My edits are WP:NPOV. This article is about declarations of war - the opening statement states "A declaration of war is a formal act by which one state announces existing or impending war activity against another." 1. Hamas is not a nation state - So Israel vs Hamas should not be included in the article 2. Hezbollah is not a nation state - So Israel vs Hezbollah should not be included in the article 3. Russia vs Ukraine are both nation states - the question then is whether there has been a declaration of war. In the case 1 & 2, the removal of these two entries is WP:NPOV and the inclusion or otherwise in this article is in no way a comment on the conflict in question - only whether they constitute a declaration of war by one nation state on another. Which they do not because they are nation states. In the case of 3, the inclusion of Russia vs Ukraine only relies on whether there has been a declaration of war. The citation I gave is documented evidence of Russia announcing that a state of war exists between Russia and Ukraine. I suggest that by taking the action they have that the complainant is the one acting in a that asserts a political opinion about the conflict
Weatherwriter reversions of my edits serve to support a political opinion on a page which is about facts. I'm pretty angry about being accused in this way when MY edits were factually based and neutral point of view, whereas by reverting my edits it does precisely the opposite, allowing contentious and politically biased information to infect the page. GRRRRRRrrr Marlarkey (talk) 23:57, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Again this makes me angry at the accusations being made against me. If you don't want people editing and contributing to wikipedia then please just say so. GRRR Marlarkey (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Result concerning Marlarkey
Marlarkey, you have gone a bit over your 500 word allotment for responses. Please do not comment further unless directly asked to. I will remove an additional reply that was both over your limit and in the wrong section. signed, Rosguill 00:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm thus inclined to suggest an indefinite partial block from Declaration of war (but not its talk page) as a regular admin action for edit warring, and a logged warning to be mindful of CTOP standards. signed, Rosguill 04:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC
|
DanielVizago
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Request concerning DanielVizago
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Schazjmd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- DanielVizago (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender_and_sexuality#Final_decision
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 29 Dec 2024 Added Category:Misandry to a BLP, after CTOP notification and several talk page messages notifying DanielVizago that the category is not to be applied to articles about individuals (per category description,
This category is for issues relating to misandry. It must not include articles about individuals, groups or media that are allegedly misandrist.
); - 4 Jan 2025 and 5 Jan 2025 Removing sourced content from Misogyny that states misandry is not a major an issue as misogyny;
- 5 Jan 2025 Changing content in Male privilege to emphasize misandry (reverted by another editor with edit summary
rv, poorly sourced (sources supplemented by WP:OR and WP:SYNTH), earlier version was better, closer to sources
); - 13 Jan 2025 Added "bimisandry" to Biphobia, citing 4 sources, none of which include that term;
- 14 Jan 2025, weird edits adding Category:Female rapists with piped names to unrelated articles, then added those names directly to the category page;
- 14 Jan 2025 restored the "bimisandry" edit to Biphobia, then added a 5th ref that includes the term but is just a blog; I left a 4th-level warning on talk page;
- 14 Jan 2025 (after final warning) adds ] and ] to Hurtcore; those two individuals don't have articles and there is no mention in this article of their charges or convictions, even though the category solely consists of
articles of female individuals who have been convicted of rape in a court of law.
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- None
- If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
- I alerted them on 28 Dec 2024
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Above diffs are all edits after the CTOP notification was provided. Before then, DanielVizago misapplied Category:Misandry to 46 articles, which is what caught my attention. Their attempts to add "bimisandry" to Biphobia started 16 Dec 2024. On 28 Dec 2024, DanielVizago added a lot of content to Supremacism about misandry, which another editor reverted with edit summary remove recently added pro-fringe section and put back the excerpt
. Most of their 122 edits have been reverted by multiple editors.
Before the level 4 warning, I tried guiding DanielVizago away from CTOP; they don't engage on their talk page. (They've posted there once, to say "thanks" in response to a warning.) With their refusal to communicate, poor sourcing, and non-NPOV edits, I don't think they should be editing in this topic area. Schazjmd (talk) 23:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning DanielVizago
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
Statement by DanielVizago
Statement by caeciliusinhorto
Since this report was opened, DanielVizago has continued to make questionable edits adding articles to Category:Female rapists.
- Possibly the worst edit, categorising a living person who has been accused (but not charged, let alone convicted) of sexual assault as a rapist (cf. WP:BLPCRIMINAL)
- This edit adds the category to a disambiguation page on the basis of one of the people listed on that page, who had in fact been convicted not of rape but of sexual activity with a minor
- this and this edit categorise two sexually-motivated murderers as rapists despite no evidence that they ever raped anyone in the article (cf. WP:CATV)
Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Statement by Simonm223
Might be wise, as long as doing so wouldn't interfere with evidence, to get a revision deletion on some of the diffs presented above that make unfounded statements about BLPs. Simonm223 (talk) 18:55, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Statement by (username)
Result concerning DanielVizago
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- I've p-blocked from article space to see if we can get this editor communicating. Valereee (talk) 12:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I want to hear what they have to say, but I'm going to need a fairly convincing explanation as to how they're here to build an encyclopedia and not to POV-push men's rights activism content where it doesn't belong. The IDHT and spammy behavior and the BLP vios on top of that aren't super encouraging, either, but if they decide to communicate, I'm happy to reassess. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:56, 18 January 2025 (UTC)